← All Phrases

“Section 119(2)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 119Section 119(2)(b)679 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 119(2)(b) is CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. (376 ITR 456), cited in 221 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 119(2)(b)

CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd.
376 ITR 456 · 2015 · Supreme Court
221
citing judgments

The requirement to file a certificate or form (e.g., Form 10CCB, 10-IC) along with the return of income for claiming a deduction (e.g., under sections 80-IB, 115BAA) is directory regarding its timing. Such a deduction is allowable if the requisite form is filed before the final order of assessment, as procedural requirements should not override substantive benefits.

CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries
201 ITR 325 · 1993 · High Court
195
citing judgments

The requirement to file an audit report along with the income tax return, as specified in provisions like Section 80J(6A) or 80-IA(7), is directory and not mandatory. Substantial compliance is achieved if the audit report is submitted at any time before the assessment is framed or completed, and benefits should not be denied merely due to a delay in furnishing it.

PCIT v. Wipro Ltd.
140 Taxmann.com 223 · 2022 · Supreme Court
192
citing judgments

Exemption provisions under Chapter III, such as Section 10B(8), must be interpreted strictly, and any claim for such exemptions must be made in the return of income. The principles governing Chapter III (incomes not forming part of total income) differ from those for Chapter VIA (deductions in computing total income).

CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd.
317 ITR 249 · 2009 · High Court
140
citing judgments

The requirement to file an audit report along with the return of income under section 80-IA(7) and similar provisions is directory, not mandatory. Such a report suffices if filed at any time before the assessment is framed.

Sarvodaya Charitable Trust v. ITO (Exemption)
125 Taxmann.com 75 · 2021 · High Court
129
citing judgments

The filing of Form 10B for claiming exemption under sections 11 and 12 is directory, not mandatory. A delay in filing Form 10B can be condoned, and exemption cannot be denied solely on this ground if the assessee satisfies other conditions and shows sufficient cause.

CIT v. Shivanand Electronics
209 ITR 63 · 1994 · High Court
100
citing judgments

The requirement to file an audit report along with the return of income for claiming specified deductions, such as under Section 80J or 80-IA, is directory and not mandatory. Such an audit report can be filed at any time before the assessment is framed or completed under Section 143(1).

Duggal & Co. v. CIT
220 ITR 456 · 1996 · High Court
84
citing judgments

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct a proper inquiry or investigation, even if the return appears prima facie correct. The Income-tax Officer has a duty to investigate and cannot remain passive.

AA520 Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
138 Taxmann.com 571 · 2022 · High Court
78
citing judgments

The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) can deny deductions claimed under Chapter VI-A, such as Section 80P, during the processing of a return under Section 143(1) if conditions for claiming such deductions, including filing the return by the due date as per Section 80AC, are not met.

Judgments citing Section 119(2)(b)

ACIT, Nunagambakkam vs. Integrated Service Point Limited, Anna Nagar

ITA 1874/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Central Circle-2(4), 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Integrated Service Point Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 30.12.2025 - : 2 -:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCA
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNAΙ मजनीय श्री मनु कुमार गिरि

Kinkini, Bhilwara vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1185/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh.Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 250

opinion, the Petitioner would have been caused undue hardship which the Department could have alleviated by allowing the Assessee's application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, which is rejected only on the technical grounds. 7.2 This Court in several recent decisions, namely in the case of Royal ... taxmann.com 222 (Gujarat)/Special Civil Application No. 10397 of 2024 has directed the Department to consider the Assessee's applications under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act to ensure that the purpose for which the said provision remains on the statute book is carried out and the said provision

Dearhood Foundation, Belagavi vs. The Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 202/PAN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji23 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.202/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2022-23 ) Dear Hood Foundation, Ddit, Vs. Plot.No.1/S,Kanbargi Cpc, Industrial Area, Bengaluru-560500. Kanabargi.S.O, Karnataka. Belgaum-590015, Karnataka. Pan/Gir No. Aaicd1005D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By Shri.Pramod Y Vaidya.Ar Revenue By Shri.Sanket Deshmukh.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm:

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 8

facts on merits and submissions on the delay. Whereas the assessee has applied for condonation of delay in filing the Form.No 10B under section 119(2)(b) of the Act with the CCIT(E) Bengaluru and same is pending till date, Further the delay of 10 days in filling ... action of the A.O/CPC. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has applied for condonation of delay in filing the Form. No 10B under section 119(2)(b) of the Act with the office of CIT(Exemptions) on 20-02-2024 and the application is pending for disposal. Whereas the assesse

Electronics & Quality Development Centre, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, (Exemption), Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

view of the said circular, the assessee had a statutory remedy available to seek condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10B under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) held that the exemption under section 11 could be allowed only if the delay in filing ... filed Form 10B electronically in accordance with requirements of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. The Assessee also filed an application under section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B. However, said application was rejected. The Hon'ble High Court that filing of Form

Kedambadi Milk Producers Co-Operative Women Society Limited, Kedambadi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Puttur, Puttur

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 280/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Kantila, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 154Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80p

bench in Arthi VInay Patil [ Supra] , ld DR also does not deny that. 17. We find that assessee can avail the provision of section 119 (2) (b) of the act by filing an application before the prescribed authority for condonation of delay in filing ... societies, particularly delays in getting accounts audited under various State Laws, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has exercised its powers under Section 119(2)(b) to provide a mechanism for condonation of delay. Circular No. 13/2023 and Circular No. 14/2024 where in these circulars authorize Chief Commissioners

Chikkamudnoor Milk Producers Co-Operative Society Limited, Chikkamudnoor vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Kantila, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 154Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80p

bench in Arthi VInay Patil [ Supra] , ld DR also does not deny that. 17. We find that assessee can avail the provision of section 119 (2) (b) of the act by filing an application before the prescribed authority for condonation of delay in filing ... societies, particularly delays in getting accounts audited under various State Laws, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has exercised its powers under Section 119(2)(b) to provide a mechanism for condonation of delay. Circular No. 13/2023 and Circular No. 14/2024 where in these circulars authorize Chief Commissioners

The Triplicane Coop Credit Society Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2672/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.B. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 80ASection 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

R 249 Kulithalai Co-Op Pard Bank Limited, Karur vs. Income Tax Officer, Karur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2543/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

application for condonation of delay is pending before the Ld. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy till date. As per explicit provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Act, JCIT(Appeals) does not have any power to adjudicate on such issues of disallowances due to delayed filing. Assessee

Sri. Shivayogi Muneswara Swamy Vidya, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 Exemption, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 602/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Shivayogi Muniswara Vs. Ito, Swamy Vidyapeetha, Ward –3 (Exemption), 1 Maralegavi Mutta, Kanakapura Tq, Bangalore. Kanakapura – 562 117, Karnataka. Pan : Aahts 1565 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ramaraju, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Ramaraju, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)(a)

date of filing of return of income i.e., on 15.02.2021 and if there was delay assessee could have opted beneficial section under section 119(2)(b) of the Act and could have applied for condonation of delay but it did not do so. In the rejoinder learned DR further submitted

The Bombay St. Xaviers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

ITA 3643/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B. PatelFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)

sufficient reasons. 1.2 It is submitted that the Appellant sought redressal of the issue by filing a petition for Condonation of Delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) in line with the CBDT Circular No. 16/2022. However, the CIT(A) dismissed ... Assessee supporting the application seeking condonation of delay it was stated that the Assessee had filed a petition for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) in line with Circular No.16/2022 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT

The Bombay St. Xaviers Society, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1266/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B. PatelFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)

sufficient reasons. 1.2 It is submitted that the Appellant sought redressal of the issue by filing a petition for Condonation of Delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) in line with the CBDT Circular No. 16/2022. However, the CIT(A) dismissed ... Assessee supporting the application seeking condonation of delay it was stated that the Assessee had filed a petition for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) in line with Circular No.16/2022 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT

Kanchanba Education Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The Ac/DCIT. Circle-1, Exemption, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1566/AHD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(7)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

cannot go beyond statutory timelines prescribed in section 12A(1)(b) of the Act, and further held that only the CIT(E) under section 119(2)(b) can condone delay and that neither CPC nor CIT(A) had such powers. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 5. Before the Tribunal

J V Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 182/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 44A

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Jv Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 181/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 44A

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Lalit Sen Lane Pratibandhi Unnayan Samity, Murshidabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1 (4), Exempt, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2175/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

case took note of the latter circular issued by the Board in Circular No. 16 of 2022 dated 19-07-2022 issued under Section 119(2)(b) by which the powers delegated to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Commissioner of Income Tax to condone the delay in filing Form

Comprehensive Rural Promotional Association, Bobbili vs. CPC Bengalur, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 319/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.319/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Cpc Comprehensive Rural Promotional Association Cbm Compound, Opp. Fire Station Bangalore Bobbili, Bobbili Govt. Hospital Road S.O. Bobbili, Vizianagaram – 535559 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaatc7028G]

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)

date as specified. 3. On being aggrieved by the order of the CPC, assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The petition for condonation before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad [in short Ld.CIT(E)] was rejected

Eloor Vanitha Kshemodharana Co-Operative Society Ltd., Udyogamandal vs. ITO Ward -1 &Tps, Aluva

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 848/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Eloor Vanitha Kshemodharana Co-Op Society Ltd. ......... Appellant Fact Dormetry Room No. 27, Kochi 683501 [Pan: Aaaae8921H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tds, Aluva .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri K.K. Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 11.09.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. No Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Was Filed By The Appellant Society Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Appellant On 30.03.2023. In Response To The Notice U/S. 148 The Appellant Filed Return Of Income On 06.06.2023 Declaring

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2019-20 Eloor Vanitha

Iwa India Foundation, Kollam vs. CIT Exemption, Kochi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 759/COCH/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Hon’Ble Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Shri Ajmar Mujahir, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A

ara arttehe aiftrepeor radi, areaitt IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN ara ged Ut Ua, Aa aS Va arrita

Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sanitation Mission, Lucknow vs. ACIT(Exemption) Circle, Lucknow

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

ITA 360/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 11(1)(a)Section 124(3)Section 143Section 143(2)

jurisdictional Commissioner/Director of Income-tax to condone delay in filing Form 10B; Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to condone such delay as per section 119(2)(b)". 6. 27. Since the appellant has not furnished any order passed by CIT(Exemption) condoning the delay in filing of Form

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Lucknow, Lucknow vs. Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sanitation Mission, Lucknow

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

ITA 288/LKW/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 11(1)(a)Section 124(3)Section 143Section 143(2)

jurisdictional Commissioner/Director of Income-tax to condone delay in filing Form 10B; Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to condone such delay as per section 119(2)(b)". 6. 27. Since the appellant has not furnished any order passed by CIT(Exemption) condoning the delay in filing of Form