← 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)

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

Aadarsh Surana, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 47Section 68

circulars in exercise of its statutory powers under section 119 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. Thus, the authority which wields the power for its own advantage

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

Ankur Dealcom P. Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2204/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2204/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-2022) Ankur Dealcom P. Limited, Vs Ito Ward-10(2), Kolkata C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aahca 2447 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 22.07.2025 For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Impugned Assessment Order Would Not Survive, Insofar As In The Order U/S.263 Of The Act Against The Said Assessment Order, The Coordinate Bench Of The Tribunal Has Categorically Held That The Notice U/S.143(2) Of The Act, Dated 20.06.2022 Which Is Culminated In The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2022, Which Is An Impugned Assessment Order Would Not Survive, Insofar As Notice U/S.143(2) Of The Act Was Not In Conformity With The Cbdt Instruction F.No.225/157/2017/Ita-Ii Dated 23-06-2017. It Was The Submission That As Against The Order U/S.263 Of The Act The Coordinate Bench Of The Tribunal

For Respondent: None
Section 12ESection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

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

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

belated applications in filing Form No. 10B for years prior to A.Y. 2018-19, to admit such applications for condonation of delay under section 119(2) of the Act and decide on merits. In this case, the assessee has filed Form 108 on 24.01.2018. The delay by the assessee

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

belated applications in filing Form No. 10B for years prior to A.Y. 2018-19, to admit such applications for condonation of delay under section 119(2) of the Act and decide on merits. In this case, the assessee has filed Form 108 on 24.01.2018. The delay by the assessee

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

Hydrise Foods Private Limited, Uttar Pradesh, India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India

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

ITA 87/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

manner provided in the statue itself. If that be so, since the Commission cannot exercise the power of relaxation found in Section 119(2) (a)in the manner provided therein it cannot invoke that power under Section 119(2)(a) to exercise the same in its judicial proceedings by following

Hydrise Foods Private Limited, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India

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

ITA 86/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

manner provided in the statue itself. If that be so, since the Commission cannot exercise the power of relaxation found in Section 119(2) (a)in the manner provided therein it cannot invoke that power under Section 119(2)(a) to exercise the same in its judicial proceedings by following

Hindcon Chemicals Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1807/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 11(1) Hindcon Chemicals Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, P-7, 62B, Braunfeld Row, 1 St Floor Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700027, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach8021M Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tirbriwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subrata Aich, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tirbriwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subrata Aich, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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

Smt Laxmidevi Somani Public Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption Ward 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid terms

ITA 5786/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Parekh, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jumale (Sr. DR)
Section 11Section 119Section 143(1)Section 250

High Court has held as under: “That the Tribunal further committed an error in appreciating the merit of section 119(2)(b) of the Act, inasmuch as the application contemplated thereunder is only additional remedy for the Assessee which could not be said to be compulsorily resorted

Mig Cricket Club, Mumbai vs. DCIT(E)-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 5721/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2014-15 Mig Cricket Club, Dcit(E)-2, Mig Colony, Mtnl Building, Mig Cricket Club, Vs. Cumballa Hill, Ramkrishna Paramhans Marg, Mumbai-400026. Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaatm4779J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Anil Sathe For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 143(1)

also supports this view it clarifies that the Commissioners of Income-tax are authorised to condone delay in filing Form No. 10B under section 119(2)(b), subject to satisfaction of reasonable cause. While the assessee may not have approached the CIT for condonation under that route, the principle underlying

Gram Nirman Mandal, Nawada vs. Dc/Ac Exemption, Cir, Patna

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

ITA 336/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)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

Centre for Incubation and Business Acceleration, Verna vs. Centralize Processing Centre, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru

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

ITA 152/PAN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 Nov 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.152/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2024-25 ) Centre For Incubation & Vs. I T O- Exemption, Business Acceleration, Ward-1, Angel Charities, Pundalik Niwas, Angel Ashram, Panaji-403001, Verna, Salcete, Goa. Goa-403722. Pan/Gir No. Aafcc5621B (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By Shri.Mahendra Gohel.Ar Revenue By Smt. Rijula Uniyal. Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm:

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)

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 CIT(E) and the delay of 39 days in filling the Form.NO.10B is not a wanton ... 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)in August 2025 and the application is pending for disposal. Whereas the assesse

The Marthandam Bee Keepers Co Op Society Ltd, Kanyakumari vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Nagercoil

ITA 3039/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

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

The Marthandam Bee Keepers Co Op Society Ltd, Kanyakumari vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Nagercoil

ITA 3038/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Mr. R. Harshvardan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

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

Shree Dandeshwar Shankar Mandir Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exem)-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 6321/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailshree Dandeshwar Shankar Mandir Trust, 72, Khar Danda Koliwada, Khar West, Mumbai – 400052 ............... Appellant Pan: Aajts6534L V/S Central Processing Centre, Income Tax Department, ……………… Respondent Bangalore.

For Appellant: Ms. Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 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