KALYANAM KAROTI MEERUT,MEERUT vs. ITO EXEMPTION GZB, GHAZIABAD

Date of hearing 25.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 25.11.2025 ORDER Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. This assessee’s appeal raises the following substantive grounds:

1. 1. That the Ld. A.O. went wrong in not considering the factual aspect and not condoned the delay of 13 days in filling form 10. The Ld. CIT Exemption Lucknow did not condone the delay. No positive direction was issued by the Ld. CIT to AO 2. The Ld. AO and Ld. CIT did not follow the circulars issued by the CBDT and the judicial pronouncements where the higher authorities allowed the delay of 365 Days.

3. The addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of accumulation of funds for the year under consideration is void and illegal and against the principle of natural justice. The funds accumulated were utilized by the trust society in the immediate succeeding year

4. Rejection of 154 by the AO and rejection of the last grievance filed by the assessee, without considering the merits of the case, is purely against natural justice.

3. A perusal of the assessee’s above extracted pleadings indicates that both the learned lower authorities have refused to its section 11 exemption claim for the sole reason of belated filing of tax audit report Form 10B, on or before the due date of filing of section 139(1) return. The Revenue’s case accordingly is that the above compliance of timely filing of Form 10B tax audit report is mandatory. Case law CIT vs. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 184 (Guj.) has already settled the issue in assessee’s favour that the foregoing compliance of filing/upholding form 10B tax audit report is directory than a mandatory provision. That being the case, I find merit in the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance and direct the learned Assessing Officer to frame its consequential computation as per law after verifying all the relevant facts.