OM CHARITABLE CHIKITSA SAMITI,GWALIOR vs. CIT APPEALS, DELHI

The assessee has filed this appeal on the following grounds :

On the facts of the case Learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting the face that the audited accounts and audit report was available in prescribed time how ever could not be submitted along with the return is a bone fide Mistake and can be cured that has not been considered is illegal unjustified and bad in Law.”

None responded on behalf of the assessee. Perused the records and heard the ld. Departmental Representative.

On the basis of aforesaid grounds, raised in this appeal, the main point to be determined under appeal is as to whether learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the assessment order, whereby the physically submitted audit report on Form 10B was not considered and the rectification request of assessee to substitute section 10(23C)(vi) as against wrong 3 | P a g e mention of section 10(23C)(iiiad) in the return for the claim of said deduction was declined despite the undisputed fact that the assessee was duly registered u/s. 12AA and u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act as well ?

The only party in attendance/the respondent through learned DR has submitted that the assessee did not file Form 10B online along with the return in compliance of section 12A(b) of the Act and further that the assessee is also not entitled for the said claim, as the gross receipts exceeded the limit of Rs.1 crore as prescribed under rule 2BC of the Income-tax Rules. Learned DR has supported the impugned order and the assessment order.

We proceed to decide the issue on merit on the basis of the material available on record. The appellant assessee has mentioned in the ‘fact of case’ available on record that due to a clerical omission, deduction was claimed u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad) instead of correct section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act.

This apart, it is further mentioned by the assessee in the “fact of case” that the required Form No. 10B could not be submitted in electronic mode despite best efforts but in physical form by assessee’s Chartered Accountant and the same was accepted by the Assessing Officer. This fact is substantiated by the assessment order dated 10.12.2019, wherein learned Assessing Officer has mentioned that the Form 10B duly signed by the Chartered Accountant was submitted during the course of assessment on 15.09.2017. The matter relates to the assessment year 2017-18.

It will be relevant to note that the law is nothing but an uncommon common sense. Any rule of procedure is only a tool for justice and if necessary, can be moulded to decide the real controversy. Procedural laws provide for natural way of doing things and do not bar even for adoption of additional procedure, as and when the situation may demand. There has to be a human approach in following the procedure prescribed so that it serves 5 | P a g e the ends of justice and it should not be applied in such a manner to kill the right/duty of any party. The sole object of procedural law is to promote justice. Therefore, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer should not have denied the rightful claim of the assessee merely on the basis that form 10B was filed in the physical form but not along with the return in electronic form, more so, when the same was filed before the prescribed date of filing of return. Ld. CIT(A) has miserably failed to take notice of aforesaid hyper- technical approach adopted by the Ld. Assessing Officer. The impugned order, thus, does not stand the test of truth. The aforesaid issue is accordingly determined in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Impugned orders dated 18.11.2024 and the assessment order dated 10.12.2019 are set aside. The matter is restored back to the file of the assessing officer with the direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law, keeping the aforesaid observations in view. Needless to say that the Assessing Officer shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice.