INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD, KOLHAPUR , KOLHAPUR V. THE NEW MIRAJ EDUCATION SOCIETY, MIRAJ, DIST. SANGLI

ITA 928/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around the New Miraj Education Society, a charitable trust engaged in running educational institutions, which claimed exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2021-22. The trust filed its audit report in Form 10B late, which led the Assessing Officer at the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, to deny the exemption initially. The CIT(A) later overturned this decision, leading to the Revenue's appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision favored the trust, emphasizing that procedural delays should not affect substantive rights under the law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 824913 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT & Anr, DCIT, Circle-8, Pune vs. Atlas Copco (India) Limited, RAM SHARAN KHAJANI DEVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIT vs. Devradhan Madhavlal Genda Trust, CIT vs. Hardeodas Agarwalla Trust, CIT vs. Shahzedanand Charity Trust, CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Bishwesharlal Motilal Malwasie Trust, Income Tax Officer vs. Sir Kikabhai Premchand Trust, Swajan Pariwar Trust vs. ADIT(E), Commissioner of Income Tax II vs Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Iron
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UDAYA BHASKAR JAKKE
• Assessee Lawyers: C. H. NANIWADEKAR; VARIOUS PRECEDENTS. AFTER; HOLDING
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Revised return; Question of law; Bonafide belief; Charitable institution; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 11; 12A; 139; 12; 119(2)(b); 10B; 80G

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE-PRESIDENT & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.928/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year : 2021-2022) ITO (Exemptions), Ward, Kolhapur vs. The New Miraj Education Society, C/o Kanya Mahavidayalaya, Shivaji Nagar Miraj, Dist. Sangli, Maharashtra-416410 PAN : AABTT 2826 J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar, CA For Revenue : Shri Udaya Bhaskar Jakke, CIT Date of Hearing : 11.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 01.01.2026 ORDER PER : ASTHA CHANDRA, JM This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of ADDL/JCIT (Appeals)-1, Guwahati [“CIT(A)”] dated 05/02/2025 pertaining to the Assessment Year (“AY”) 2021-22. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that assessee is a charitable trust engaged in running educational institutions. It is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. It is also registered u/s. 12A and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”). For A.Y. 2021-22, assessee filed its return of income on 30/12/2021 declaring total income of ₹36,460/- after Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA.No.928/PUN/2025 (The New Miraj Education Society) claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The audit report in Form 10B was filed on 23/09/2022 with a delay of 268 days from the due date for filing of the same. Return of the assessee was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act vide intimation order dated 23/08/2022. While processing ITR of the assessee-trust, the Central Processing Center, Bangaluru/Assessing Officer (“AO/CPC”) denied the exemption u/s. 11 of the Act on the ground that audit report in Form 10B was filed belatedly. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) challenging the intimation order passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 23/08/2022. The appeal was filed with a delay of 449 days, however, Ld.CIT(A) condoned the same and decided the assessee’s appeal on the impugned issue holding that assessee is entitled for exemption u/s.11 of the Act and directed the Ld.AO/CPC to delete the addition of ₹6,37,30,847/-. The relevant findings and observations of the Ld.CIT(A) are reproduced below:- “6.2.1 Verdict: The contention of the appellant has been gone through. During the course of appellate proceedings the appellant had submitted that: With reference to the notice dated 20.02.2024 fixing the date of furnishing of written submissions in the captioned appeal on or before 27.02.2024. In response to the same, we hereby submit as under in this regard: The assessee trust is an educational institution, registered under The Societies Registration Act 1860 (having registration no. F-56) and also registered under The Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (having registration number Bom. XXIX of 1950) since 1960. The main activities of the trust are carrying on educational activities in the interest of general public. The assessee has received an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act from CPC, Bengaluru on 23rd August, 2022 against which assessee has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(A) for relief. There is a delay in filing of appeal by 449 days Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA.No.928/PUN/2025 (The New Miraj Education Society) Regarding the delay in filing of appeal, we would like to submit that the assessee trust was not properly advised for espousing the legal issue now sought to be raised. The managing committee of the assessee society was given to understand that all the compliances were made and nothing further is required to be done and thus under bonafide impression that filing of Form 10B would resolve the issues involved in the subject intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. However, after receipt of demand recovery notice on 09.08.2023, the assessee trust approached another tax professional to seek advice on the matter. The same has been stated in its affidavit enclosed with the appeal memo. Upon discussions with another tax professional, it was informed to us that the subject matter involved in the subject intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act is a legal issue which is covered in favour of the assessee by various precedents. After considering the same, the assessee trust considered filing an appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(A) in the matter. The due date for which was 23.09.2022, and therefore, there is a delay of 449 days in filing of the appeal. In this regard, we wish to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT & Anr [(2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom)) wherein it has been held that none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. Further we also wish to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Pune in case of DCIT, Circle-8, Pune vs. Atlas Copco (India) Limited (ITA No.649/PUN/2013 & 1726/PUN/2014] wherein the jurisdictional ITAT also condoned delays of 1965 & 1018 days and took up the matter for disposal on merits. An affidavit to this effect was also submitted along with the appeal memo, that is also attached herewith Annexure-1 for your ready reference. Considering the facts as well as the law, we earnestly request that the appeal may kindly be accepted and the delay may please be condoned. Ground No.1 & 2: Brief facts of the case are as under, For the year under consideration ie. AY 2021-22, it filed its Income Tax return on 30.12.2021, vide Ack No. 653076820301221 declaring total income of Rs. 36,460. The due date for filing of the Income, Tax return was 15.02.2022. In the ITR filed, the assessee trust has stated that it is a Trust/Institution Registered u/s 12A and claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The extended due date for filing of the Income Tax return was 15.02.2022 and the extended due date for filing of Form 10B was 15.01.2022. The assessee trust filed the audit report in Form 10B along with its return of income on 23.09.2022 i.e. with a delay of 251 days from the due date for filing of the same. But the audit u/s 12A of the Act for the year under consideration was already completed on 30.06.2021, The assessee trust has also appropriately claimed the exemptions u/s 11 of the Act. We would like to mention here that though it was filed on 23.09.2022, the accounts were audited under Income Tax Act 1961 on 30.06.2021 itself, i.e. before filing the ITR. As such, there is a delay in filing of Form 10B of 251 Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA.No.928/PUN/2025 (The New Miraj Education Society) days in furnishing of form 10B. Copy of the Audit Report in Form 10B is attached herewith at Sr.No. Particulars Date 1 Date of obtaining audit report in Form 10B 30/06/2021 2 Due date of filing of Audit Report in Form 10B Due date was extended vide circular No.17 of 2021 dated 09/09/2021 15/01/2022 3 Date of filing of Form in 10B 23/09/2022 4 Due date of Filing of ROI for A.Y. 2021-22 15/02/2022 5 Date of filing of ROI for A.Y. 2021-22 30/12/2021 In this regard, it must be appreciated that, the assessee being a charitable organization is being run by its trustees and none of the trustees of the assessee trust belong to finance or legal background. The audit was being completed by an independent chartered accountant who has been looking after the same for past many years. Further, as per the online filing procedure for Form 10B, the online submission of the Form is to be done by the auditors first and then the same is to be approved by the assessee trust. As such, the assessee trust was relying upon its auditor with a bonafide belief that the auditor will complete the audit and will make sure that the related compliances will be done within the stipulated timeline. As such, the assessee trust was under bonafide belief that the auditor may have complied with all the statutory compliances related to the audit under the Act. The assessee trust received the subject intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act on 23.08.2022 and discussed the same with its auditor. That was the first time when the assessee got to know that the audit report was not submitted in stipulated timeline. The assessee trust then followed up with its auditor and made sure that the filing of Form 10B has been completed immediately. Consequently, the subject Form 10B has been uploaded by the auditor on 19.09.2022 which was e-verified on 23.09.2022 vide Acknowledgement No. 524018800230922. Considering the facts involved, it is clear that the subject delay of 251 days in filing of Form 108 was without any malafide intentions to jeopardize the interest of the revenue by delaying the filing of Form 10B. Also, this is merely a procedural default that does not invalidate the eligibility of the exemption u/s 11 of the Act to the assessee trust. Subsequently, the assessee trust was given to understand that all the compliances were made and nothing further is required to be done and thus under the bonafide belief that the subject filing of Form 10B will be sufficient to resolve the issues as well as the demand from the subject intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act to get the eligible claim u/s 11 of the Act vis-à-vis nullify the demand raised therein. However, while processing the ITR of the assessee trust at CPC, Bengaluru, the return was processed without providing with the eligible claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act, on the basis that the Audit Report in form 10B was filed after the due date of filing of the same. The assessee was not provided with the opportunity of being heard before making such a disallowance which is not in line with the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act. The moot question now is whether furnishing of audit report u/s 12A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 beyond the specified date but before the completion of assessment will disentitle the assessee from the benefits of section Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA.No.928/PUN/2025 (The New Miraj Education Society) 11 of the Income Tax Act 1961 in respect of which the assessee trust would like to submit as under, \"Section 124 (1)(b): 12. Conditions for applicability of sections 11 and 12. (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:- (a) (b) where the total income of the trust or institution as computed under this Act without giving effect to the provisions of section 11 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 and the person in receipt of the income furnishes along with the return of income for the relevant assessment year the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed;\" Rule 17B of the IT Rules, 1962, lays down that the report of audit of the trust or the institution should be in Form No. 10B. The annexure to Form No. 10B requires the auditor to certify as to the application of income for charitable or religious purposes and the non- application or non- use of income or property for the benefit of the persons referred to in s. 13(3). The certificate is ordinarily based on the statement of the managing trustees. The balance sheet and income and expenditure statement would necessarily contain the particulars of the application of income and non-use of income or property. The certificate of the auditor only affirms the statements contained in the balance sheet and income and expenditure statement. The Assessing Officer can rely on the certificate for allowing the benefit of exemption. This is a procedural matter for the purpose of enabling the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment on the basis of the certificate of the auditor. It is now well-settled that a procedural provision, ordinarily, should not be construed as mandatory, if the defect in the act done in pursuance of it can be cured by permitting the appropriate rectification to be carried out at a subsequent stage. Procedural laws are devised and enacted for the purpose of advancing justice. It does not mean that the procedural laws should be brushed aside by the Court. It depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular case as to whether a breach in the observance of any procedural law, would cause real and substantial injustice to the parties. Having regard to the object of section 12A, it cannot be said that the legislature intended that, even where the trust has got its accounts audited and the certificate obtained in Form No. 10B before the assessment is completed, merely because such report could not be filed in the course of filing of ITR, it would deprive a trust of getting the exemption if it is otherwise entitled to it in law. It must also be appreciated that, the word \"shall\" occurring in section 12A cannot, under the circumstances, be read as a \"must\" making it mandatory for the trust to furnish the auditor's report along with the filing of the return. If for certain unavoidable circumstances, the assessee is Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA.No.928/PUN/2025 (The New Miraj Education Society) unable to furnish the auditor's report along with the return then the same can be furnished at a later date. We would like to bring Your Honor's kind attention to CBDT Circular No. (1/1148-CBDT F. No. 267/482/77-IT (Part) dt. 9th Feb., 1978- CBDT Bulletin Tech. XXIII/582 (enclosed herewith at Annexure-3 for your honour's ready reference) wherein CBDT has said -\"Charitable trust-Requirement of filing audit report in Form 10B-Section 124(1)(b)-Instructions regarding.- The Board have considered whether the requirement under Section 124(1)(b) of filing audit report 'along with the return of income' is mandatory so as to disentitle the trust from claiming exemption under Sections 11 and 12 in case of omission to furnish such report in the prescribed form along with the return. Normally, it should be possible for a charitable or religious trust or institution to file the auditor's report along with the return of total income, where such trust or institution claims exemption under Sections 11 and 12. However, in cases where for reasons beyond the control of the assessee some delay has occurred in filing the said report the exemption as available to such trust under Sections 11 and 12 may not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the auditor's report and the Income-tax Officer should record reasons for accepting a belated audit report.\" From the aforesaid CBDT circular a reasonable inference can be drawn that the provisions of section 12A(1)(b) are directory in nature and not mandatory for claiming of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act in the sense that the assessing authority / appellate authority is not powerless to allow an assessee the eligible exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act, if the audit report is not filed before the specified date. One has to look at the intent of law behind the legal provisions. One has to construe the provision to ensure coherence and consistency to avoid undesirable consequences. Where the audit report was furnished after the due date for filing of the same but before the completion of assessment, there was no reason why such audit report should not be allowed to be filed before the completion of the assessment /appellate proceedings. In this regard, we wish to rely upon the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in case of RAM SHARAN KHAJANI DEVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (2022) 65 CCH 0024 wherein it has been held that, \"Since the assessee in the instant case has got its accounts audited before the due date and has undisputedly filed the same before the completion of the assessment, CIT(Appeals) is not justified in denying the claim of exemption u/s 11 on the allegation that form No. 10B has not been filed in time.\" We also rely upon the decision of Hon'ble MP High court in case of CIT v. Devradhan Madhavlal Genda Trust [(1998) 230 ITR 714, 717 (MP HC)] it has been held that if the audit report is not at all filed, there would be justification to reject the claim for exemption under s. 11 but if the same has been filed, even after the return has been filed but within the period permitted by law, it would be against the spirit of the Act to deny exemption. The requirement is, thus, directory and we find that the Tribunal was justified in holding that filing of the audit report in Form No. 10B with the return of income was not mandatory and it was sufficient compliance with section Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA.No.928/PUN/2025 (The New Miraj Education Society) 124(b), if the same was filed during the course of the assessment proceedings. The aforesaid principal is also upheld by courts in the following cases - CIT vs. Hardeodas Agarwalla Trust (1992) 198 ITR 511 (Cal HC) CIT v. Shahzedanand Charity Trust, (1997) 228 ITR 292, 299 (Pun) HC) - CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Bishwesharlal Motilal Malwasie Trust (1992) 195 ITR 825 (Cal HC) Income Tax Officer vs. Sir Kikabhai Premchand Trust 42 SOT 403 (Mum ITAT) Swajan Pariwar Trust vs. ADIT(E) (1997) 57 TTJ 77 Commissioner of Income Tax II vs Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Iron 93CCH233 (Mum ITAT) Considering the facts involved, it is clear that the subject delay of 251 days in filing of Form 10B was without any malafide intentions to jeopardize the interest of the revenue by delaying the filing of Form 10B. Also, this is merely a procedural default that does not invalidate the eligibility of the exemption u/s 11 of the Act to the assessee trust. As such, it is our humble submission that, the audit report in Form 10B ought to be considered even if filed after the specified date as it is not a case where the return of income was filed without audit as prescribed u/s 12A(1)(b) of the Act. Based on the aforesaid facts, legal provisions, reasonable interpretations and legal precedents, we request your honour to consider the submission and allow the assessee frust the benefit of exemption under section 11 & 12 of the Act for the year under consideration. 6.2.2 The submission of the appellant has been gone through along with the case laws relied upon and Circular dated 09.02.1978, It is noticed that in the instant case there is delay in only procedure. As decided in various case laws relied upon by the appellant and factual aspects of the case, it is concluded that the appellant is entitled for exemptions u/s. 11 as other conditions are found fulfilled. Therefore, the assessing officer is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 6,37,30,847/-. 4. Dissatisfied, Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter Addl./Jt. CIT(A) in short] erred in allowing the benefit of exemption u/s. 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter I.T. Act in short] to the assessee, without appreciating the fact that while processing the return of income u/s 143(1), the Assessing Officer at Centralized Processing Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA.No.928/PUN/2025 (The New Miraj Education Society) Centre, Bengaluru had rightly denied the assessee's claim of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act as per Rule 17 of the I.T. Rules, 1962 and CBDT Circular No.02/2020 dated 03.01.2020, since the assessee had not uploaded its Form No. 10B for A.Y. 2021-22 within the prescribed time allowed u/s. 139 of the Act. 2. On facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. Addl./Jt. CIT(A) erred in allowing the benefit of exemption u/s. 11 of the I.T. Act to the assessee by holding that filing of Audit Report is merely a procedural formality, without appreciating the fact that as per the specific provisions of clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12A of the Act, the failure to furnish such report in the prescribed form within the prescribed due date would result in disentitlement of the trust from claiming exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act. 3. On facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. AddI./Jt. CIT(A) erred in allowing the benefit of exemption u/s. 11 of the I.T. Act to the assessee by holding that filing of Audit Report is merely a procedural formality, without appreciating the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its decision in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Wipro Limited, Civil Appeal No. 1449 of 2022 dated 11.07.2022 [140 Taxmann.com 223 (SC)] that the exemption provisions should be construed strictly and the requirements for claiming exemption, even if procedural, should be followed in the letter and spirit. 4. On facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. Addl./Jt. CIT(A) erred in allowing the benefit of exemption u/s. 11 of the I.T. Act to the assessee, without appreciating the fact that the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax i.e. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune had already rejected assessee's application for condonation of delay u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act for the delay in filing of Form No.10B for A.Y. 2021-22 vide order dated 05.10.2023. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or omit any or all the grounds of appeal.” 5. Ld. Departmental Representative (“DR”) submitted that assessee is habitual defaulter in filing Form 10B within the prescribed limit and hence, Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in accepting the plea of the assessee and allowing the exemption claimed u/s. 11 of the Act. Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd. [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223(SC), Ld. DR submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that exemption provisions should be construed strictly and the requirements for claiming exemption, even if procedural, should be Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA.No.928/PUN/2025 (The New Miraj Education Society) followed in letter and spirit. In view of the above decision, ld. DR submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing the benefit of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act holding that filing of Form 10B is merely procedural formality. He further submitted that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune vide order dated 05/10/2023 has already rejected the assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B for A.Y.2021-22 under consideration. He, therefore, submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) should be set aside and that of the Ld.AO/CPC be restored. 6. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, supported the order of Ld.CIT(A). He submitted that Form 10B was filed on 23/09/2022 and the intimation order was passed on 23/08/2022. He submitted that although Form 10B was filed belatedly after the intimation order u/s. 143(1) was already passed, but it was available during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act should be sustained. In support thereof, Ld.AR relied on the decision of Coordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of ACIT (Exemptions) vs. The Nanded Sikhgurudwara Sachkhand Hazur Sahib in ITA Nos. 808 & 809/PUN/2024, order dated 26/05/2025. 7. We have heard Ld. Representatives of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We have also perused the judicial precedents cited before us. We find that Ld.AO/CPC while processing the intimation order u/s. 143(1) of the Act, has denied the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act on account of Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA.No.928/PUN/2025 (The New Miraj Education Society) late filing of Form 10B, which was filed on 23/09/2022, but due date was 15/02/2022 for A.Y. 2021-22. The Ld.CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s.11 for the reasons already reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. Undisputedly, the audit report in Form 10B was filed on 23/09/2022 and the intimation order u/s. 143(1) of the Act was passed on 23/08/2022. Thus, in the instant case, the audit report in Form 10B has been filed after the return of income has been processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. It is, however, the contention of the assessee that Form 10B was duly available before the Ld.CIT(A) at the time of appellate proceedings before him and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee and various judicial precedents wherein under identical set of facts, a favourable view on the impugned issue have been taken, the Ld.CIT(A) rightly allowed the assessee’s claim of exemption. It is the contention of the Ld. AR that filing of Form 10B for claiming u/s. 11 is not mandatory requirement, but only directory in nature and therefore, even if Form 10B is furnished belatedly, the claim of exemption u/s. 11 should be granted to the assessee. We find some force in the contentions of the Ld.AR. 8. We have also perused the decision of Coordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal in the case The Nanded Sikhgurudwara Sachkhand Hazur Sahib (supra) (to which both the Members are parties) and find that the Tribunal under similar set of facts has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and allowed the claim of exemption u/s. 11 Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA.No.928/PUN/2025 (The New Miraj Education Society) of the Act to the assessee. The relevant observations and findings of the Tribunal, in the above referred case, are as under:- “20. So far as the grievance of the Revenue that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by holding that filing of audit report in the prescribed form before completion of the assessment proceedings is sufficient compliance under the provisions of the Act is concerned, we find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC while deciding the issue has followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for assessment year 2014-15. We find the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT (Exemptions) vs. Laxmanarayan Dev Shrishan Seva Khendra (supra), while deciding an identical issue after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Wipro Limited (supra), has held that when the assessee has already filed the audit report in Form 10B electronically during the pendency of appellate proceedings along with copy of audited financial statements, delay in filing of the said Form is rightly condoned by the Commissioner of Appeals and the Tribunal. The relevant observations of the Hon‟ble High Court read as under: “4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms.Maithili Mehta for the appellant submitted that in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Bangalore v. M/s.Wipro Limited of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered on 11th July, 2022 in Civil Appeal No.1449 of 2022 it was held that requirement of Section 10B(8) of the Act which provides for requirement of furnishing declaration for claiming exemption under Section 10B of the Act is mandatory but the time limit within which such declaration is to be filed is also held to be mandatory. Relying upon the aforesaid decision, it was submitted that the assessee ought to have filed the audit report in Form 10B of the Act before the due date of filing of the return to claim the exemption under Section 12A of the Act. 5. Reliance placed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms.Maithili Mehta for the appellant on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-III and Others versus M/s. Wipro Limited in Civil Appeal No.1499 of 2022 would not be applicable in the facts of the case, as in the facts of the present case, the assessee has claimed the exemption under Section 11 read with Section 12A(1)(b) of the Act which required the assessee to file Audit Report in Form of 10B of the Act which has nothing to do with claiming 100% exemption of total income in respect of newly established 100% Export Oriented Undertakings under Section 10B of the Act. Section 10B(8) of the Act requires the assessee to file an undertaking before the due date of furnishing of return of income under sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act before the Assessing Officer in writing that the provision of Section 10B of the Act may not be made applicable to him, otherwise the provision of this Section shall not apply to him for any of the relevant assessment year. Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA.No.928/PUN/2025 (The New Miraj Education Society) 6. Considering the language of the provision of Section 10B(8) of the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was mandatory on part of the assessee to file declaration before the due date of filing of return under Sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act, whereas, in the facts of the said case the assessee filed such undertaking along with the revised return under Sub-section (5) of Section 139 of the Act and in such facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the twin conditions prescribed under Section 10B(8) of the Act was mandatory to be fulfilled and it cannot be said that though the declaration is mandatory, the filing of such declaration within the due date of filing of return under Sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act would be directory. 7. Reference to the aforesaid decision has no connection whatsoever remotely to the facts of the present case and therefore, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal has rightly followed the decision of this Court in case of Sarvodaya Charitable Trust v. Income Tax Officer (Exemption) in Special Civil Application No.6097 of 2020 decided on 09th December, 2020 as well as the decision in case of Social Security Scheme of GICEA (supra) to uphold the decision of the CIT (Appeals), wherein this Court has held that the approach of the authority in such type of cases should be equitable, balancing and judicious. In the facts of the case, when the assessee has already filed the audit report in Form 10B electronically on 27.02.2021 during pendency of appellate proceedings along with copy of audited financial statements, delay in filing the said form is rightly condoned by CIT(A) and the Tribunal. 8. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error by not following the decision in case of M/s.Wipro Limited (supra) as referred to and relied upon by learned advocate for the appellantRevenue, and has rightly followed the decision of this Court in case of Social Security Scheme of GICEA (supra). 9. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 21. We find the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT (Exemption) vs. Anjana Foundation (supra) has held that a charitable trust cannot be denied benefit of section 11 solely for not filing audit report in Form No.10B, as it is only a procedural requirement. 22 x x x x x 23. However, as mentioned earlier, the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Wipro Limited (supra) has held that where the assessee had already filed audit report in Form 10B electronically during pendency of appellate proceedings along with copy of audited financial statements, it is sufficient compliance for claiming the exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Since in the instant case the assessee has already submitted the audited report in Form No.10BB during Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA.No.928/PUN/2025 (The New Miraj Education Society) assessment proceedings itself, therefore, the assessee in our opinion is in a better position. The various other decisions relied on by the Revenue as per grounds of appeal or during the course of arguments are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC allowing the claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(v) of the Act for belated filing of Form No.10BB. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly dismissed.” 9. Based on the facts of the case and legal position set out and in the absence of any contrary material/decision brought on record by the Revenue before us, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld.CIT(A) in allowing the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 01st January, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- [R.K. PANDA] [ASTHA CHANDRA] VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 01-01-2026 vr/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr.CIT concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. By Order //True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "