DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL DELHI vs. MAHARAJI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, GHAZIABAD

The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in deletingdisallowance of Rs. 10,27,06,176/- made by the A.O. u/s 143(1) of the Act on account of non-comp0laicne with 10th Proviso of Section 10(23C) of the Act and corresponding provision of Section 14A of the Act. Thus, the Ld. Departmental Representative sought for allowing the Appeal.

Per contra, the Ld. Assessee's Representative submitted hat due to Covid-19 situations, the Assessee could not file Form No. 10BB on time, however, the same has been filed on 28/03/2022. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that time limit for filing the Form No. 10BB is not mandatory it is only advisory. The ld. Assessee's Representative relying on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) sought for dismissal of the Appeal of the Revenue. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As per the Circular No. 1/2022, the due date to file Form 10BB was 15/02/2022, however, the Assessee filed Form No. 10BB on 28/03/2022. It is true that at that point of time, the Covid-situations were in exist. As per the Assessee due to Covid-19 situations, the Assessee could not file the Form 10BB on time. The Ld. CIT(A) while allowing the Appeal relied on plethora of Judgment and found that the Assessee trust being a registered u/s 12AA of the Act and field original his return on time and also From 10BB on the date of filing of return of income, therefore, observed that the Assessee has complied with the requirements of furnishing of Form 10BB.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-III Bangalore and AnrsVs. M/s Wipro Limited held as under:- “14. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in observing and holding that the requirement of furnishing a declaration under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act is mandatory, but the time limit within which the declaration is to be filed is not mandatory but is directory. The same is erroneous and contrary to the unambiguous language contained in Section 10B (8) of the IT Act. We hold that for claiming the benefit under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, the twin conditions of furnishing a declaration before the assessing officer and that too before the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1) are to be satisfied and both are mandatorily to be complied with. Accordingly, the question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. (8) of the IT Act on non- compliance of the twin conditions as provided under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, as observed hereinabove. The present Appeal is accordingly Allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.”

In view of the settled principals of law that the limitation for filing of Form 10BB is only an advisorynot mandatory and in the absence of contrary material brought on record by the Department against the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), we find no reason to interfere with the conclusion of the Ld. CIT(A) in allowing the First Appeal filed by the Assessee. Accordingly, we dismiss the Grounds of Appeal of the Revenue. 8. In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.