ANKUR FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI V. ITO (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2594/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ankur Foundation, which appealed against the order passed by the CIT(A) that disallowed an exemption claimed under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The disallowance was initially due to the mismatch of the assessee's 12A/80G registration number with the department's records and the late filing of the audit report in form 10B. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's contentions, leading to the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had condoned the delay in filing form 10B, a fact not considered by the CIT(A) in the original decision. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh evaluation in light of this new development.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779145 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN SALUNKHE
• Assessee Lawyers: TEJAS VIRTUALLY APPEARED
• Section: 11; 10B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H-SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2594/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Ankur Foundation A-2, Rose Patel B, Veronica road, Bandra Mumbai – 400050. Vs. ITO (E)- 1(1) 6th floor, MTNL Tel Exchange Bldg, Cumballa Hills, Pedder Road, Mumbai – 400026 PAN/GIR No. AAATA0836E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Mr. Tejas (Virtually appeared) Revenue by Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 17.02.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre / CIT(A), Mumbai for the assessment year 2022- 23. 2. As per the facts of the case, the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act by the CPC, wherein a demand was raised by disallowing exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act on account of the fact that assessee’s 12A/80G registration Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 2594/Mum/2025 Ankur Foundation, Mumbai number mentioned in the return of income was not matching with the record of the department and the audit report in form 10B was not filed one month prior to the due date for furnishing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. 3. The assessee had contested both the reasons before Ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed replies but the same were rejected by holding that since form 10B was not filed within the stipulated time and was filed delayed and further held that mere uploading without e-verification does not constitute valid filing. Consequently, other ground regarding registration number issued was also rejected by holding that since there is ‘no form’ on time filed by the assessee. 4. Now before us, order dated 13.09.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(E) has been placed on record which shows that delay in filing form 10B has been condoned. Since this order of Ld. CIT(E) is having direct bearing upon the merits of the case of the assessee, and was not before Ld. CIT(A) at the time of deciding the appeal, therefore be that as it may we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met in case the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to decide the issue afresh on merits after taking into consideration the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A), thereby condoning the delay in filing form 10B. Thus we order accordingly. Needless to mention that Ld. CIT(A) shall provide Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 2594/Mum/2025 Ankur Foundation, Mumbai sufficient opportunity of hearing to the parties before adjudicating the issues on merits. 5. Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 13/10/2025 KRK, PS आदेश की \bितिलिप अ\u000eेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. \u000eथ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0019 / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु\u0019(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु\u0003बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स\u000eािपत ित //True Copy// 1. उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई / ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "