← All Phrases

“Section 119(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 119Section 119(2)554 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 119(2) is Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (267 ITR 272), cited in 501 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 119(2)

Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
267 ITR 272 · 2004 · Supreme Court
501
citing judgments

CBDT and CBEC circulars, along with administrative instructions, are binding on departmental authorities, who must not act in contravention of them. However, these circulars and instructions are not binding on courts or assessees.

UCO Bank v. CIT
237 ITR 889 · 1999 · Supreme Court
486
citing judgments

CBDT circulars and instructions, while not binding on courts or assessees, are strictly binding on income-tax departmental authorities, who cannot act in contravention of them.

Gajanan Constructions v. DCIT
74 Taxmann.com 6 · 2016 · ITAT
465
citing judgments

Late fees under section 234E can only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015. Levying late fees for periods prior to this date is not permissible.

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).

Setty & Others vs. State of Karnataka (7) (1996) 1 SCC 345- Secretary Government of Madras v. P.R. Sriramulu
4 SCC 720 · 2008 · Reported
145
citing judgments

The validity of Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, is examined by the court.

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.

Judgments citing Section 119(2)

Shri Dandi Sewa Ashram, Onkareshwar vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption, Bhopal

ITA 560/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 10Section 10(24)Section 11Section 124Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253

filed by such trusts or institutions for condoning the delay in filing Form No. 108 and in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2) of the Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby directs that, (1) The delay in filing of Form ... years prior to AY 2018-19, the Commissioners of Income-tax are authorized to admit such applications for condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The Commissioners will while entertaining such belated applications in filing Form No. 10B shall satisfy themselves that the assessee was prevented

Income Tax Officer Ward-3 Exemp, Nagpur vs. Prerna Samajik Sanskritik Bahuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Armori, Gadchiroli

In the result, the appeal of revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 408/NAG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy, Am

For Appellant: Shri Milind Bhusari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT–DR
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(ba)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2

appellant, the CIT(Exemption), Pune has already condoned the delay in filing the Form No. 10B vide order dated 26-05-2023 under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. With condonation of delay so granted before processing under section 143(1), there was no basis with

M/S. Arulmigu Gnanamalai Murugan Educational Trust, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ward-2, Exemptions, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 3652/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3652/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 253

appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT (Exemptions) rejecting the condonation petition filed by the assessee under section 119(2)(b). As per the provisions of section 253, the order passed under Arulmigu Gnanamalai Murugam Educational Trust :- 2 -: section 119(2

Sree Jeshta Laxmi Welfare and Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bangalore

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

ITA 1803/BANG/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2026-27 M/S. Sree Jeshta Laxmi Welfare & Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Charitable Trust, Unity Building Annexe, No.50, Karnataka Layout, Mission Road, 2Nd Cross, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 079. Pan : Aakts 9479 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Rajeev Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 12A

file and therefore the only option left with the assessee is to file application for condonation of delay before the Principal CIT under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. Even otherwise, he submitted that the assessee has not furnished the requisite details and therefore in absence of these details ... 12.In view of the above facts, if the assessee makes an application and the delay is condoned by the learned Principal CIT under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, filing Form No.10AB, the learned CIT(E) is directed to grant an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Meanwhile

G2K Trust, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3114/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3113 & 3114/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 G2K Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 5, Abila Avenue, Santosh Garden, Ward 2(1), Kulumani Main Road, Woraiyur, Tiruchirappalli. Trichy 620 102. [Pan: Aactg4763G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. K. Abhirame, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T. Mythili, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 04.07.2025 & 15.07.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A), Panaji For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively.

For Appellant: Ms. K. Abhirame, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT
Section 143(1)

quote the relevant observations thus (page 170 of 13 ITR – OL): "8. The rejection of the petitioner's application under section 119(2)(b) is only on the ground that according to the Chief Commissioner's opinion the plea of omission by the auditor was not substantiated. This court

G2K Trust, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3113/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3113 & 3114/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 G2K Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 5, Abila Avenue, Santosh Garden, Ward 2(1), Kulumani Main Road, Woraiyur, Tiruchirappalli. Trichy 620 102. [Pan: Aactg4763G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. K. Abhirame, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T. Mythili, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 04.07.2025 & 15.07.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A), Panaji For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively.

For Appellant: Ms. K. Abhirame, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT
Section 143(1)

quote the relevant observations thus (page 170 of 13 ITR – OL): "8. The rejection of the petitioner's application under section 119(2)(b) is only on the ground that according to the Chief Commissioner's opinion the plea of omission by the auditor was not substantiated. This court

Bada Saab Properties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4449/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Badasaab Properties Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 501 Krystal, 206 Waterfield Road, Tax, Bandra (West) Vs. Circle – 4(1)(1), Maharashtra – 400 050 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Pan: Aaacb1642A (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 115JSection 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

ground that the power to condone the delay in filing Form 10-IC is not vested with the Ld. CIT(A) as per section 119(2)(b) of the Act. M/s. Badasaab Properties Pvt. Ltd. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a domestic company ... assessee stating that the first appellate authority does not have the power to condone the delay in filing Form 10-IC as per section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have

Ummeed Foundation, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward 3(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 2084/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2020-21

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

Foundation Vs. ITO, AY-2020-21 5 caused undue hardship which the Department could have alleviated by allowing the Assessee's application under Section 119(2)(6) of the Act, which is rejected only on the technical grounds “7.2 This Court in several recent decisions, namely in the case ... 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

Ameenamma Charitble Trust, Anantapur vs. ITO, (Exemption) Ward-Tirupati, Tirupati

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee Trust is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1841/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1841/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Ameenamma Charitable Vs. Income Tax Officer Trust, (Exemption) Ward – Anantapur. Tirupati. Pan: Aaeta7403P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ka Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K Vamsi Krishna, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Trust Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai, Dated 03/10/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Tirupati (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 14/12/2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri KA Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri K Vamsi Krishna, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

assessee at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that the application filed by the assessee Trust under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, dated 13/08/2019 requesting for condonation of delay in filing Form-10 for the AY 2016-17 had been allowed by the Commissioner of Income

Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2388/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 10(100)Section 10(108)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 251

under section 251 are wide and Include the authority to entertain and allow a fresh legal claim. in contrast, the PCIT acting under section 119(2)(b) cannot adjudicate or grant exemption u/s 10(108). The impugned direction amounts to abdication of duty, rendering the order

Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2387/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 10(100)Section 10(108)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 251

under section 251 are wide and Include the authority to entertain and allow a fresh legal claim. in contrast, the PCIT acting under section 119(2)(b) cannot adjudicate or grant exemption u/s 10(108). The impugned direction amounts to abdication of duty, rendering the order

Brightmoon Securities Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 25(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3285/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Brightmoon Securities Private Ito, Ward 25(1) Limited Aaykar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Gariahat Road (South) Advocates, 2 Garstin Place, 2 Nd Room No.1/9, 1St Floor, Vs. Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Kolkata-700053, Street, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcb7280E Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Susanta Saha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

statutory powers under section 119 of the Act which are binding on the authorities in the administration of the Act. Under section 119(2)(a), however, the circulars as contemplated therein cannot be adverse to the assessee. The power is given for the purpose of just, proper and efficient management

Indrani Sikder, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 36(6), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3284/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

statutory powers under section 119 of the Act which are binding on the authorities in the administration of the Act. Under section 119(2)(a), however, the circulars as contemplated therein cannot be adverse to the assessee. The power is given for the purpose of just, proper and efficient management

Ashoke Sen, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 50(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3021/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ashoke Sen Ito, Ward 50(1) Lawgical Consultants, 29D, Uttarapan Complex, Ds-Iv, Bentick Street, Unit-A, B &C, Maniktala Civic Centre, Kolkata- Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700001, 700054, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ayfps8468K Assessee By : Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Susanta Saha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jalan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

statutory powers under section 119 of the Act which are binding on the authorities in the administration of the Act. Under section 119(2)(a), however, the circulars as contemplated therein cannot be adverse to the assessee. The power is given for the purpose of just, proper and efficient management

Excel Financial Consultants (P) Limited, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 13(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2608/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pampa Ray, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

statutory powers under section 119 of the Act which are binding on the authorities in the administration of the Act. Under section 119(2)(a), however, the circulars as contemplated therein cannot be adverse to the assessee. The power is given for the purpose of just, proper and efficient management

G.C.T.Alumni Association, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3673/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3673/Chny/2025 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 11Section 119Section 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

Association :- 5 -: 27. The Departmental Representative during the course of hearing had argued that the assessee had sought for relief in terms of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act by filing a petition for the condonation of delay in filing Form No.10B for the assessment year under consideration before ... argument of the ld.DR. is unable to be countenanced by the Tribunal in view of that the remedy provided for in terms of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is an additional remedy available for a taxpayer to seek recourse for addressing its grievances on account of non- filing

Ss58Slmdtgov Hrsecschool Staff Coop Thrift and Credit Society Limited, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 2984/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2984/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 119(2)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 80ASection 80P

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

Vesava Koli Samaj Shikshan Sanstha, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption) Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6751/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sushil R. Shendge, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)

present Writ Petition challenges the impugned order dated 26th March, 2025 passed by Respondent No. 1 rejecting the Petitioner's application under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "I. T. Act"), for condonation of delay of 181 days in filing Form ... runs only an educational institution, especially when the demand has arisen solely on account of a technical lapse. Considering the beneficial object of section 119(2)(b) and the CBDT circulars empowering condonation in genuine cases, we are satisfied that the Petitioner is entitled to relief. 8. We accordingly quash

Nikhil Banga Kalyan Samity, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 2807/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 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

Institute of Actuaries of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Exemptions)-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 7028/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 10Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)

also directed to accept the filing of Form-10B with delay subject to condonation of delay as per provisions of section 119(2)(b) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (for short “Ld. CIT(E)”). The assessee, thus, had instituted an application on 21.04.2022 and submitted letter ... which otherwise it is entitled to, however the assessee was advised to follow procedure under proviso for filing of form 10B, in terms section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 5. In order to comply, the aforesaid decision of ld. CIT(E) in setting aside the issue to the file