Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.239

Section 119(2)(b) falls under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 239 (Instructions to subordinate authorities) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 239 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

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 of the 980 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

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.

Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna v. ITO
135 Taxmann.com 358 · 2022 · ITAT
109
citing judgments

The filing of Form 67 for claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is a directory requirement, not mandatory. Rule 128(9) does not provide for disallowance of FTC due to delay in filing this form. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) override domestic law.

ATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD AND OTHERS. 39. (1978) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV HAYAWADANRAO HOSKOT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 40
3 SCC 261 · 1997 · Reported
106
citing judgments

The constitutional validity of an enactment can be supported by arguments that it would pass legal tests.

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).

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.

CIT v. Mayur Foundation
274 ITR 562 · 2005 · High Court
68
citing judgments

The Gujarat High Court held that Form No. 10, for exercising the option under section 11(2) to accumulate income, can be submitted during assessment proceedings, including before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which is a continuation of assessment proceedings. Such submission constitutes sufficient compliance for claiming exemption under section 11.

Judgments on Section 119(2)(b)

Shiv Kumar Keshwani, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. ITO-3(4), Lakhimpur

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

ITA 630/LKW/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Aug 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2021-22 Shiv Kumar Keshwani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kashinagar, Kashinagar, Lakhimpur 3(4), Lakhimpur-1 Kheri, Uttar Pradesh-262701 Pan: Acgpk1077K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Smt. Pratibha Singh, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 23.08.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 154 For The A.Y. 2021-22 On 30.05.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Id. "Cit(A)" Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That There Was No Mistake In The Order U/S 154 As There Was No Mistake Apparent From Record & On That Basis In Upholding The Order U/S 154 Of The Act Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2. Because While Upholding The Rectification Order On The Ground That There Was No Mistake Apparent From Record In Terms Of Section 154 Of The Act, The Id. "Cit(A)" Failed To Appreciate That Due To Typographical Error In The Return Of Income The Assessee Had Wrongly Offered Long Term Capital Gain At Rs. 25,66,288/- Instead Of Correct Amount Of Rs. 11,97,893/- & That The Said Error Constituted "Mistake Apparent From Record" In Terms Of Section 154 Of The "Act" Which Mistake Was Rectifiable U/S 154 Of The "Act". 3. Because Order Passed By The Authorities Below Are Unjust & Contrary To Circular No. 014(Xl-35)/1955 Dated 11.04.1955, Wherein Cbdt Has Long

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Pratibha Singh, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(1)Section 9