DR. PRABHA ATRE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 124/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Dr. Prabha Atre Foundation, a charitable trust, which appealed against the order of the CIT(A) that upheld the disallowance of expenditure incurred for charitable purposes amounting to Rs.19,18,602. The disallowance was initially made by the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) due to the late filing of the income tax return and the audit report in Form 10B. The Tribunal considered various precedents and the CBDT circular which clarified that the return filed within the extended due date should be accepted for the purpose of allowing the exemption under section 11. The Tribunal noted that the audit report was filed before the completion of the assessment and thus allowed the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314208 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Other Referred Cases: Bangarh Educational Welfare Trust vs. ITO, Indore Contract Bridge Association vs. CPC, Bengaluru, Savitri Foundation Vs. ITO, M/s Shardaben Education Trust, Gandhinagar Vs. ITO, Indian Panel Board Manufacturer vs. DCIT, Shri Bhairav Seva Samiti vs. ITO, CIT vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Iron & Steel Market Committee, CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries, CIT vs. Mayur Foundation
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Charitable institution; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 143(3); 11; 12AA; 12A; 139; 12; 10B; 139(5)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K(SMC)” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 124/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dr. Prabha Atre Foundation 17th Madhavi Society, Mahim, Mumbai – 400016. (PAN: AAATD2812K) Vs. Income Tax Exemption, Ward 1(2), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Sanjiv Brahme and Shri Jayant Bhatt, ARs Revenue : Shri Kiran Unavekar, SR. DR. Date of Hearing : 12.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09.05.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), ADDL/JCIT (A)-2 Coimbatore, vide order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1069037465(1), dated 24.09.2024, passed against the intimation issued by DLC-WX-(102)(1), u/s. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 30.11.2021, for Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: 2 ITA No. 124/Mum/2025 Dr. Prabha Atre Founda on, Mumbai; AY 2020-21 i. “I. The ADDL/JCIT-2 Coimbatore has erred in dismissing the Appeal ii. II. The ADDL/JCIT-2 has erred in not granting proper opportunity of hearing. iii. III. The ADDL/JCIT 2 has erred in not restoring the case to the file of ITO Exemption or CIT (Exemption j iv. IV. The ADDL/JCIT 2 has erred in not granting the relief based on submissions.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a trust registered under the Bombay Trust Act, undertaking charitable education activity. Assessee filed its return of income on 16.03.2021 in Form ITR-7 claiming exemption u/s.11 of the Act. Return of the assessee was processed by Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru (CPC), for which intimation u/s.143(1) was issued on 30.11.2021 whereby application of income amounting to Rs.19,18,602/- was disallowed and demand was raised. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). 4. Before the ld. CIT(A), assessee explained the circumstances which led to filing of its return beyond the due date which was extended to 15.02.2021. According to the assessee, it was a period of Pandemic Covid 19 and the professional engaged by it for filing of tax return expired due to Covid 19 in the month of June, 2020 which constrained the assessee to get hold of relevant financial data for the purpose of complying with the regulatory filings. Assessee also filed its audit report in Form -10B along with the return, i.e., on 16.03.2021 which under the provisions of the Act is ought to be filed one month prior to the due date of filing of return. Ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee had failed to file its return of income within the extended due date and it also failed to file the audit report in Form -10B within the extended due date. According to him, since assessee had not obtained approval of 3 ITA No. 124/Mum/2025 Dr. Prabha Atre Founda on, Mumbai; AY 2020-21 appropriate authority for condoning the delay of filing of audit report in Form-10B, CPC disallowed the claim of expenditure incurred for the charitable purposes. Assessee has failed to follow the procedural guidelines to avail the benefit of exemption u/s.11 of the Act and thus he upheld the disallowance of expenditure incurred for the charitable purposes amounting to Rs.19,18,602/- by way of adjustment made by CPC while processing return u/s.143(1)(a). Appeal of the assessee was thus dismissed. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel reiterated the above facts and circumstances which are not repeated for the sake of avoiding duplicity. Fact of return filed belatedly and also the audit report in Form-10B is not in dispute. In this back drop, the issue to be addressed is whether such belated filing be accepted for the purpose of allowing the claim of exemption u/s.11 as claimed by the assessee in its return. The said issue is no longer res integra as held by several Coordinate Benches of ITAT and by various Hon'ble High Courts including Jurisdiction High Court of Bombay, whereby return filed within the time allowed u/s.139 of the Act is taken on record, so also the filing of Form-10B once placed on record, are to be considered for the purpose of allowing the exemption u/s.11. 5.1. Identical issue was addressed by Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Bangarh Educational Welfare Trust vs. ITO in ITA No.496/Kol/2021, dated 02.01.2022, wherein the coordinate bench taking note of CBDT circular No.F.No.173/193/2019-ITA-I, dated 23.04.2019 had decided the matter in favour of the assessee observing as under: “8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The assessee is a charitable trust established for imparting education to rural 4 ITA No. 124/Mum/2025 Dr. Prabha Atre Founda on, Mumbai; AY 2020-21 areas without any profit motive. It enjoys registration u/s 12AA of the Act granted vide order dated 12.09.2018 effective from A.Y 2018- 19 onwards. It claimed benefit u/s 11 and 12 of the Act of Rs. 13587109/-. However, CPC while processing u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act denied the said exemption on account of two reasons; firstly the return of income was not filed before due date as prescribed u/s 139(4) of the Act and secondly audit report on Form 10B not uploaded before due date prescribed under the Act. Now, undisputedly in the case of assessee, the return of income is filed on 15.11.2018 and audit report on form 10B e-filed on 30.03.2019. Now, before adverting to the grounds, we would first like to go through the relevant provisions which have a direct bearing on the issue of requirement of filing of audit report and income tax return by the trust or institutions registered u/s 12A of the Act. Section 12A(1)(b) and 12(1)(ba) of the Act reads as follows: “Conditions for applicability of sections 11 and 12. 12A. (1) The provisions of section-11 and section-12 shall not apply in relation to the income of any trust or institution unless the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:— *** *** *** (b) where the total income of the trust or institution as computed under this Act without giving effect to the provisions of section11 and section-12 exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax in any previous year, the accounts of the trust or institution for that year have been audited by an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section-288 48[before the specified date referred to in section44AB and the person in receipt of the income furnishes by that date] the report of such audit in the prescribed form49 duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed;] (ba) the person in receipt of the income has furnished the return of income for the previous year in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4A) of section- 139, within the time allowed under that section. *** *** *** 9. Section 12A(1)(ba) of the Act provides that the provisions of section 11 and 12 shall apply in relation to income of any trust or institution if the person in receipt of the income has furnished the return of income for the previous year in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4A) of section 139 i.e. within the time allowed under that section. Now, since reference has been made to section 139(4A) of the Act and the same is reproduced below: “S.139(4A) Every person in receipt of income derived from property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for charitable or religious purposes or in part only for such purposes, or of income being voluntary contributions referred to in subclause (iia) of clause (24) of section 2, shall, if the total income in respect of which he is assessable as a representative assessee (the total income for this purpose being computed under this Act without giving effect to the provisions of sections 11 and 12) exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, furnish a return of such income of the previous year in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and all the provisions of this Act shall, so far may be, apply as if it were a return required to be furnished under sub- section (1).]]” 5 ITA No. 124/Mum/2025 Dr. Prabha Atre Founda on, Mumbai; AY 2020-21 10. Now, going through the provisions to section 139(4A) of the Act shows that the assessee is required to file the return as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. Now, perusal of section 139(1) shows that in the case of the assessee which is required to get its account audited, the due date is 30.09.2018 and for A.Y 2018-19 this date was further extended to 31.10.2018 vide CBDT’s order dated 24.09.2018. Now, since the assessee has filed the return on 15.11.2018, it is a belated return. Thus, there remains no dispute to the fact that the return of income filed by the assessee is a belated return which as per section 139(5) of the Act could have been filed latest by 31.03.2019. Now, at this stage, we would like to refer to Circular issued by CBDT on 23.04.2019 giving clarification with regard to time allowed for filing of return of income subsequent to insertion of clause (ba) in sub-section 1 of section 12A of the Act and the same is reproduced below: F.No. 173/193/2019-ITA-I Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes New Delhi, Dated: 23 April, 2019 To, The Pr. DGIT (Systems), New Delhi. Subject : Clarification with regard to the time allowed for filing of return of income subsequent to the insertion of Clause (ba) in subsection 1 of section 12A of the income –tax Act , 1961. Sir, Undersigned is directed to refer to the representation (s) received on above mentioned subject stating that while processing of ITR-7 for the A.Y. 2018- 19, in respect of the belated returns filed u/ s 139(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), the following is being communicated u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act:- “As per section 12A(1)(ba) of the Income -tax Act , 1961 the person in receipt of the income has furnished the return of income for the previous year in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4A) of section 139, within the time allowed under that section. Otherwise the exemption u/s- 11 i.e. sr. no 4(i) and 4 viii in schedule Part BTI is not allowed.” Based on this, exemption u/s 11 of the Act has been denied to otherwise eligible trust, thereby creating huge demand. 2. In the matter, the memorandum explaining the relevant provisions of the Finance Bill, 2017 reads as under: “as per the existing provisions of said section, the entities registered under section 12AA are required to file return of income under subsection (4A) of section 139, if the total income without giving effect to 05 Standards & Norms, Legal Series Vol. XII, Issue 1, April 2019 CBDT 6 ITA No. 124/Mum/2025 Dr. Prabha Atre Founda on, Mumbai; AY 2020-21 CLARIFICATION ON PENALTIES FOR DELAYED FILING OF RETURN IN ITR-7 the provisions of sections 11 and 12 exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax. However, there is no clarity as to whether the said return of income is to be filed within time allowed u/ s 139 of the Act or otherwise. In order to provide clarity in this regard , it is proposed to further amend section 12A so as to provide for further condition that the person in receipt of the income chargeable to incometax shall furnish the return of income within the time allowed under section 139 of the Act. These amendments are clarificatory in nature. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2018 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to assessment year 2018-19 and subsequent years.” 3. Additionally, an excerpt of circular 02/2018 dated 15.02.2018 “Explanatory Notes to the Provisions of the Finance Act, 2017” on insertion of clause (ba) in Sub section (1) of section 12A is quoted as under: “the entities registered under section 12AA are required to file return of income under sub-section (4A) of section 139 of the Income -tax Act, if the total income without giving effect to the provisions of sections 11 and 12 exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax. Amendment to section 12A of the Income-tax has been made so as to provide for additional condition that the person in receipt of the income chargeable to income-tax shall furnish the return of income within the time allowed under section 139 of the Income -tax Act.” 3. Thus, for a trust registered U/s 12AA of the Act to avail the benefit of exemption u/s 11 shall inter-alia file its return of income within the time allowed u/s 139 of the Act. Accordingly, orders u/s 143(1)(a) in those cases in which demand has been raised on this issue may please be rectified. This issues with the approval of Chairman(CBDT). (Vinay Sheel Gautam) JCIT (OSD) (ITA-I) Telefax: 011-23093070 E-mail: [e-mail] 11. From perusal of the above referred circular, we find that in Para 3 of the said circular specifically states that a trust registered u/s 12AA of the Act, benefit of section 11 shall be available if the return of income is filed within the time allowed u/s 139 of the Act. It further states that orders u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act in those cases in which demand has been raised on this issue may please be rectified. From the circular, we note that an amendment was brought in by insertion of clause (ba) of section 12A(1) of the Act from 2018- 19 onwards through which one of the requirements for claiming the benefit u/s 11 and 12 of the Act was to file the return of income within time allowed u/s 139(4A) of the Act. It seems that specially for A.Y 2018-19, when the Form ITR-7 was being processed and for such belated return, demand was raised, representations were received from various assessees on this issue. Taking note of this issue, the said CBDT Circular has issued and while dealing with this issue, the returns filed within the time 7 ITA No. 124/Mum/2025 Dr. Prabha Atre Founda on, Mumbai; AY 2020-21 allowed u/s 139 of the Act have been directed to be accepted for the purpose of considering benefit of deduction u/s 11 of the Act. Now, since only section 139 of the Act has been mentioned and does not specify whether it is about u/s 139(1) of the Act or section 139(5) of the Act, the view beneficial to the assessee needs to be accepted and, since section 139(1) and section 139(5) are part of section 139 only and in this section 139 and sub-section (5) provides the mechanism to file a belated return, therefore, for A.Y 2018-19, even if the assessee files the return before the last date of filing of belated return the same should be treated as due compliance to section 12A(1)(ba) of the Act. For the year under appeal, the belated return could have been filed before 31.03.2019, and since the assessee has filed the return on 15.11.2018, therefore, considering the directions of CBDT Circular dated 23.04.2019, which are binding on the Revenue authorities, we are of the view that the assessee has fulfilled the conditions provided under sub- clause (ba) of section 12A(1) of the Act and has filed the return of income within the time allowed.” 5.2. On the issue relating to allowability of exemption u/s.11/12 in a situation where the assessee has not filed audit report before filing return of income or even upto the processing of return u/s.143(1) but filed subsequently at the first appellate stage, the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Indore held in favour of the assessee accepting the belated filing to allow the claim of exemption u/s.11, in the case of Indore Contract Bridge Association vs. CPC, Bengaluru, in ITA No.4033/IND/2022, dated 18.04.2023. Relevant paragraphs of the said order are reproduced. “8. The exact controversy involved in these grounds is whether or not the assessee was entitled for exemption u/s 11/12 as claimed in the return of income, when the audit-report (Form No. 10B) was filed belatedly after processing of return u/s 143(1)? 9. Apropos to this issue, the precise facts are: The assessee is a charitable society registered u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and entitled for exemption u/s 11/12; accordingly, it claimed exemption u/s 11/12 in the return of income. But when the AO processed return u/s 143(1) vide intimation dated 09.03.2019, he did not allow exemption u/s 11/12 for the reason that the audit report (Form No. 10B) was not filed by assessee with return of income. Subsequently after processing of return, the Form No. 10B was e-filed/uploaded on 03.04.2019 / 04.05.2019 before filing of first appeal. 10. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was engaged in charitable activities; that the registration granted to it by tax authorities u/s 12A was in force; that the assessee had been granted benefit of section 11/12 in preceding assessment- years as well as subsequent assessment-years. He further submitted that the 8 ITA No. 124/Mum/2025 Dr. Prabha Atre Founda on, Mumbai; AY 2020-21 assessee filed return of income on 03.08.2017 and prior to such filing, the accounts of assessee were duly audited on 08.06.2017, a copy of the audited- accounts is placed in the Paper-Book. However, the auditors of assessee failed to upload the audit-report alongwith the return of income. But, post-processing of return u/s 143(1) and before filing of first-appeal, the assessee arranged to get the audit-report e-filed/uploaded on 03.04.2019 / 04.05.2019. Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has, without appreciating these facts, dismissed the appeal of assessee merely on a technical defect that the audit-report was not filed alongwith the return of income. Ld. AR submitted that except such technical defect, there is no other reason to deny the benefit of section 11/12 to assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the e-filing/uploading of audit-report is done by auditors and not by assessee; therefore the defect is not per se attributable to assessee. Ld. AR submitted that in any case, the defect is due to an inadvertent human error and the assessee should not be denied the legitimate exemption, when the assessee is genuinely doing charitable activities for the welfare of public and satisfying all conditions prescribed in income-tax law for being entitled to exemption. Ld. AR submitted that if the audit-report obtained by assessee on 08.06.2017 but filed on 03.04.2019 / 04.05.2019 is accepted, the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of exemption. Ld. AR placed a heavy reliance on the latest decision of ITAT in Savitri Foundation Vs. ITO, ITA No. 1925/Mum/2021 (AY 2018-19) order dated 01.08.2022 wherein the AO made processing of return u/s 143(1) denying exemption u/s 11 to assessee for the very same reason of non-uploading of audit report before filing of return but subsequently the assessee uploaded audit-report during the course of first- appeal; when the matter reached ITAT, the Mumbai Bench has allowed exemption to assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the decision taken by ITAT is directly applicable to assessee. Ld. AR also submitted that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wipro Ltd. 446 ITR 1 relied upon by Ld. CIT(A) is quite distinguishable for the reasons that (i) the said decision involved deduction u/s section 10B whereas the present-appeal is concerned with exemption u/s 11/12; and (ii) the said decision involved interpretation of sub-section (8) of section 10B which is a negative provision i.e. it provides that if the assessee did not want to apply section 10B, then the assessee had to file a declaration but this is not a case in section 11/12. 11. Per contra, Ld. DR vehemently defended the orders of lower-authorities and submitted that furnishing of audit-report alongwith return of income is a pre- condition for allowability of exemption u/s 11. Since the assessee has not fulfilled such condition, the lower-authorities have rightly denied the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 11 and there is no infirmity in the action of lower-authorities. 12. We have heard rival contentions of both sides and examined the present controversy in the light of judicial decisions. At first, we are convinced that the controversy is directly settled in favour of assessee by decision in Savitri Foundation (supra) where the Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT, following the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in CIT vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Iron & Steel Market Committee 378 ITR 103 has observed and held thus: 9 ITA No. 124/Mum/2025 Dr. Prabha Atre Founda on, Mumbai; AY 2020-21 “4. Submissions made by rival sides heard, orders of authorities below examined and the case law on which the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance considered. The assessee is a charitable trust registered under section 12AA of the Act and has been purportedly enjoying the benefits of section 11 since 2011. In the impugned assessment year, the benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Act has been denied to the assessee for the reason that assessee has failed to furnish audit report along with return of income. The contention of the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee is that the audit report was available with the assessee at the time of filing of return of income however due to inadvertent error the assessee failed to upload Audit Report in Form 10B along with e-filing of return of income. Non-filing of Audit Report is a bonafide error. The assessee has placed on record Audit Report dated 19/10/2018 in the prescribed Form 10B at page 15 of the Paper Book. The assessee after receiving the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act uploaded the Audit Report on 18/04/2020 in First Appellate proceedings. 5. In my considered view non-filing of Audit Report in Form 10B along with Return of Income is merely a procedural defect which is rectifiable. If the Audit Report was available with the assessee at the time of filing of Return of Income and was not filed due to bonafide reasons the benefit of exemption under section 11 cannot be denied if otherwise assessee is eligible to claim the same. 6. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Iron & Steel Market Committee (supra) has held that late filing of required documents would not disentitle the assessee from availing benefit of section 11 of the Act. Thus, in the facts of the case and in the light of decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, I deem it appropriate to restore the file back to Assessing Officer for de novo assessment after considering the audit report field by the assessee, in accordance with law. 7. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.” 13. We also gainfully refer another recent decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of M/s Shardaben Education Trust, Gandhinagar Vs. ITO, Ahmedabad, ITA No. 2312/Ahd/2018, order dated 16.11.2022 where a similar controversy has been decided in favour of assessee, after following the decisions of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries reported in 201 ITR 325 and CIT vs. Mayur Foundation reported in 274 ITR 562. The relevant paragraphs of the order of ITAT are as under: “12. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. As per the provisions of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act, it is necessary for the assessee in order to claim exemption under section 11 of the Act to get the accounts audited as well as obtain the audit report in the prescribed form from the qualified 10 ITA No. 124/Mum/2025 Dr. Prabha Atre Founda on, Mumbai; AY 2020-21 chartered accountant which is to be filed along with the return of income. Admittedly, in the case on hand the assessee has not filed form 10B being the audit report along with the return of income and the same was also not filed till the completion of the assessment order as well as appellate order by the learned CIT-A. As such the order of the learned CIT(A) was passed dated 30th November 2017 whereas the Form 10B of the audit report was filed/uploaded dated 25th December 2017 which evidences that the audit report in Form 10B was filed subsequent to the appellate order by the learned CIT-A. At this juncture it is also pertinent to note that the audit report in the prescribed form was prepared and signed by the qualified chartered accountant dated 5th September 2014 much before the date of filing the return of income by the assessee. Thus, it appears that report for the audit in the prescribed form was prepared well in time but it was filed belatedly. 12.1 Now the controversy arises whether the assessee can claim the benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Act in a situation where the audit report in the prescribed form was not filed along with return of income. In this context we note that act of the assessee to file the audit report duly signed by the qualified chartered accountant is a procedural requirement and the courts have held that the assessee cannot be denied the benefit for which it is entitled in the event of any procedural contravention specified under the provisions of the Act. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries reported in 201 ITR 325, the relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced as under: “In our view, the aforesaid reasoning of the Allahabad High Court and the Patna High Court would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The provision about furnishing of the auditors' report along with the return has to be treated as a procedural provision, directory in nature, and its substantial compliance should suffice, meaning thereby that such report should be made available by the assessee to the Assessing Officer latest when the question of framing of assessment is taken up by the Income-tax Officer and when he applies his mind to the claim of the assessee and if by that time, the assessee has put his house in order and has furnished the report of the auditor for supporting the return, he can be said to have satisfied the requirement of section 80J(6A) of the Act.” 12.2 In view of the above we hold that the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of exemption for which it is entitled merely on the lapse of procedural requirement i.e. delay in filing the audit report in the prescribed form. In the judgment cited above, it was provided that the audit report was filed by the assessee before the completion of the assessment. In other words, the compliance of the law was made by the assessee when the assessment proceedings was pending before the AO whereas in the case on hand the assessee complied the requirement at 11 ITA No. 124/Mum/2025 Dr. Prabha Atre Founda on, Mumbai; AY 2020-21 the stage of appellate proceeding before tribunal. Thus, a question arises before us whether the principles laid down in the judgment cited above can be applied in the given facts and circumstances. In this context we note that, in the judgment cited above it was observed that procedural requirement for filing the audit report was fulfilled by the assessee before the completion of the assessment. But the facts of the case on hand are different in so far the audit report was filed by the assessee after the completion of the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act. In this regard we note that the assessment remains pending if any appeal is pending before the higher forum. In other words, if any appeal is pending either before the ld. CITA or before the ITAT which transpires the fact that the assessment is pending. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Mayur Foundation reported in 274 ITR 562, wherein it was held as under: “Thus, the proceedings before the Tribunal are meant to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee: If this be so, it follows that the assessment proceeding cannot be said to be complete and is pending till the appeal is heard and disposed of by the Tribunal and the order of the Tribunal is given effect to by the assessing authority by computing the correct tax liability of an assessee. In other words, whether an assessee is required to pay tax or becomes entitled to a refund, would be ascertained by the assessing authority after giving effect to the order of the Tribunal.” 12.3 Admittedly, the appeal was pending before the ITAT at the time when the audit report in form 10B was filed which transpires that the assessment has not reached to the finality and therefore principle laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (Supra), that the requirement for filing the audit report is a procedural requirement, can be applied in the given facts and circumstances. Therefore, the benefit for which the assessee is entitled cannot be denied.” 14. Respectfully following these decisions, we are of the view that in the present case, the assessee can’t be denied the benefit of exemption u/s 11 as claimed in the return of income for mere delay in filing of audit-report. We, therefore, deem it fit to remand this matter back to the file of AO for a fresh assessment after considering the audit-report filed by assessee, in accordance with law. These grounds are accordingly allowed.” 5.3. Reference is also made to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Indian Panel Board Manufacturer vs. DCIT [2023] 157 taxmann.com 550 (Guj), dated 21.03.2023. Also the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Shri Bhairav Seva Samiti vs. ITO [2023] 149 taxmann.com 478 (Mum) allowed assessee’s claim on 12 ITA No. 124/Mum/2025 Dr. Prabha Atre Founda on, Mumbai; AY 2020-21 exemption u/s.11 which was denied in identical circumstances by the CPC while making adjustment u/s.143(1) for non-filing of Form-10B along with return of income but which was subsequently filed by the assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT(A) vs. Xavier Kelavani Mandal, which held that even when Form-10B is filed at a later stage, exemption cannot be denied u/s.11 of the Act. 6. Considering the facts of the case and the jurisdictional precedents discussed above, claim of assessee is allowed. Accordingly, grounds raise by the assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 09 May, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Sandeep Singh Karhail) (Girish Agrawal) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 09 May, 2025 MP, Sr.P.S. Copy to : 1 The Appellant 2 The Respondent 3 DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4 5 Guard File CIT BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "