“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)

Hewlett Packard Financial Services (India) P. Ltd, Bangalore vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1)(2), Bangaluru

Accordingly, the ground is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 915/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 41

assessee, authorise any income tax authority to admit any such application or claim after expiry of the period specified under the Act. Section 119(2)(b) is reproduced as under: "the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship in any case

Medip Healthtech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1069/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 M/S.Medip Healthtech Pvt. Ltd. The Dcit, Sf-210, Devashish Business Park Vs. Cir.2(1)(1) Nr.Popular Domeinn, Satellite Vejalpur Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan : Aakcm 0291 J (Applicant) (Responent) : Ms.Vinata Bhura, Ar Assessee By : Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 30Section 43B

course of hearing before us, the Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the above facts and further submitted that the assessee filed an application under section 119(2)(b) before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ahmedabad, seeking condonation of delay in filing Form ... direction to recompute the tax at the concessional rate of 22% under section 115BAA after taking into consideration the condonation granted under section 119(2)(b). 3.2 The Departmental Representative (DR) fairly submitted that he had no objection if the matter is restored to the Assessing Officer for verification

Spandana Sphoorty Financial Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle 3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 821/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 69A

statutory powers under section 119 of the Income-tax Act which are binding on the authorities in the administration of the Act. Under section 119(2) however, the circulars as contemplated therein cannot be adverse to the assessee. Thus the authority which wields the power for its own advantage under

Seva Bharathi, Hyderabad vs. CIT., Exemption Ward 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

ITA 365/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA Sri HarshaFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

that, the delay in filing of Form 10B was due to ill medical health of the accountant. This constitutes a reasonable cause under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard ... 2) on the ground that the audit report was not filed. 5.6. The tribunal further committed an error in appreciating the import 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

Seva Bharathi, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

ITA 1307/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: CA Sri HarshaFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

Gautam Kumar Sadhu, Hooghly vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 24(1), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1574/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Acit, 24(1), Hooghly, Gautam Kumar Sadhu Aaykar Bhawan, Khadina More, Mahakalitala, P.O. Bansberia, Chinsurah, Hooghly-712102, Vs. Hooghly-712502, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Atfps6692E Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kallol Mistry, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kallol Mistry, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

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

Sunil Singh, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 30(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2555/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito Ward 30(1), Kolkata Sunil Singh Aaykar Bhawan Dakshin, North Tangra, Dhapa Road, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Room Chowbagha South 24 Parganas, Vs. No.3, Fifth Floor, Kolkata-700053 Kolkata-700105, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Anbps5909E Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

ACIT, Circle-3, Thane, Ashar It Park Thane vs. Magic Kraft Private Limited, Vasai East

ITA 4338/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 1ISection 250

technical lapse in filing the prescribed form. Circular No. 07/2023 dated 31.05.2023 – lays down monetary limits and authority-wise powers for condonation under section 119(2)(b). Importantly, it reiterates that claims relating to Form 10-IC can be condoned by the appropriate authority. 16. Reliance in this regard ... which its return was processed without giving benefit of lower rate of tax - Assessee relying upon CBDT Circular No. 19/2023 filed application under section 119(2)(b) before respondent to condone delay in filing Form 10- IC and to permit it to file same electronically - However, respondent rejected application holding

ACIT, Circle-3, Thane, Ashar, It Park vs. Magic Kraft Private Limited, Vasai East

ITA 4327/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 1ISection 250

Ft 92 the Vilupuram and Tindivanam Gov Arts College Teaching and Non-Teaching Staffs Co-Op Society, Vilupuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Vilupuram

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 2046/CHNY/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2046/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri G. Reddi Prakash, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

r.w.s. 80AC, the only remedy available lies in the machinery provisions of the Act rather seeking legal remedy. Such provisions are found in section 119(2)(b) which enables an assessee to approach the Board for seeking relief in such cases. 4. The ld.AR filed the coordinate orders

Catherine Jean Chandhok, Delhi vs. PCIT, Noida

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3954/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Kulheri, Sr. DR

Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 253(1)

Board of Taxes (CBDT) to issue instructions to lower levels of authority for proper administration of the Income tax Act. For this purpose, section 119(2)(b) empowers CBDT to authorize any income tax authorities to admit any claim for exemption, deduction, refund and any other relief under the income

Adyashakti Himghar Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1187/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Adyashakti Himghar Pvt. Ltd….……………………….……….……….……Appellant 11 Paul Street, Kol- 700004.. [Pan: Aacca1114C] Vs. Acit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 07, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

B Y L Nair Charitable Hospital Poor Patients Fund, Mumbai vs. Exem. Ward 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, subject to verification, the appeal of the

ITA 1568/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Dani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui,(Sr. DR)

Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

CBDT Circular No. 6/2020 dated 19th February 2020, which explicitly allows the condonation of delay in filing Form 9A and Form 10 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, subject to conditions that were met in the present case. 5. That the Learned CIT(A) has ignored the fact ... Nair Charitable Hospital Poor Patients Fund 2020 which explicitly allows the condonation of delay in filing Form 9A and Form 10 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, subject to conditions that were met in the present case. 5.2 It is also contented that the Trust is rendering essential

Sanjana Clothings Private Limited, Indore vs. Aid, CPC Bengaluru, Bengaluru

ITA 841/IND/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

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

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Central Methodist Church, Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 105/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, CIT DR

Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 250

appeal of the assessee overlooking the issue of condonation of delay caused in filing Form No. 10B, such delay being condonable as per section 119(2)(b), petition for which is pending adjudication before the CIT(Exemptions), the order passed by the CIT(A) be set aside. 02. Because ... subsequent assessment years, the Commissioners of Income Tax, were authorized to admit such belated applications for condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act and decide the same on merits. The ld. CIT (Exemption) considered the issues raised by the assessee and pointed out that

Shri Bhagwandas Ramdasji Charitable and Religious Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO, Exemption-2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4451/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kanta N D Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Bhagwandas Ito (Exemption)-2(3), Ramdasji Charitable & Mumbai Religious Trust, Ground Floor, Oricon House, 1076, Vs. Dr E Moses Road, Mumbai- 400 018 Pan: Aabts 4907 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 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

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 705/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

Chennai, wherein the coordinate bench also came across the similar matter as before us and held as under: The CBDT has, under section 119(2)(a), the power to issue directions or instructions to the Income-tax authorities (not prejudicial to the assessee) for the purpose of proper and efficient

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 697/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 696/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 240/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Global University Foundation Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (Exemption) Ward-1 Pan:Aaicg0020F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Suvibha Nolka राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Sankar Pandi, P, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14/07/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y.2021-22. 2. There Is A Delay Of 506 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Supported By An Affidavit Of The Director Of The Assessee Foundation. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Was Not Served With The Impugned Order Dated 14/07/2023 Passed By The Learned Cit (A) & Therefore, Due To The Non-Communication Of The Impugned Order, The Assessee

For Appellant: CA Suvibha NolkaFor Respondent: : Shri Sankar Pandi, P, Sr.AR

Section 11Section 143(1)

impugned order what is apparent is that the impugned order does not indicate anything in respect of the contents of the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the act filed by the petitioner seeking for condonation of delay. There is no discussion on the explanation so provided being provided ... Column Nos.14 and 15 of the said application under Section 119 (2)(b) of the act. Once when the assessee provides for an explanation, it is incumbent upon the authorities concerned to consider the explanation and give a specific finding whether the explanation so provided is satisfactory or whether