JAGADGURU PANCHACHARYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,KOLHAPUR V. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, KOLHAPUR

ITA 2683/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Jagadguru Panchacharya Education Society, a charitable trust, which appealed against the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-6, Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-19. The primary contention was the late submission of the audit report in Form 10B, which was filed 826 days after the due date. The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) assessed the gross receipts of the trust as income due to this delay, which the trust contested. The Tribunal referenced similar cases and precedents where delays in procedural requirements were condoned, leading to the decision to set aside the lower authority's order and allow the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126810 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: M/s Sikar Zilla Welfare Trust vs. ITO, CIT vs. Laxmanarayan Dev Shrishan Seva Khendra, Hari Gyan Pracharak Trust vs. DCIT, Oneness Educational and Charitable Trust vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Global Organization for Development vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Al Jamia Mohammediyah Education Society vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Sarvodaya Charitable Trust vs. ITO(Exemption), Bangarh Educational Welfare Trust
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P. MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: SANKET M. JOSHI
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Period of limitation; Charitable institution; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 143(3); 201; 154; 143(1); 11; 12AA; 139(1); 12A; 13; 139; 119(2)(b); 10B

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2683/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Jagadguru Panchacharya Education Society, Gujan Apartment, 4th Lane, Shahupuri, Kolhapur- 416001. PAN : AACTS3546H Vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Kolhapur. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.11.2024 passed by Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-6, Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the CPC of assessing the gross receipts of Rs 3,79,22,156 as income of the appellant trust merely on the ground that the Audit Report in Form No. 10B obtained on 10.05.2018 was electronically uploaded on 05.10.2020 i.e. after the due date of filing ITR u/s 139(1) without appreciating that the said action of the CPC was Assessee by : Shri Sanket M. Joshi Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 27.01.2025 Date of pronouncement : 25.04.2025 ITA No.2683/PUN/2024 2 beyond the scope of permissible adjustments u/s 143(1) of the Act. 2] The learned CTT(A) failed to appreciate that the condition of uploading of audit report in Form 10B was directory in nature and therefore, the delay in electronically uploading the audit report could not have resulted into denial of exemption u/s 11 in view of the law laid down by various Hon'ble Courts and thus, the disallowance u/s 11 made on the above debatable issue, was outside the scope of permissible adjustments u/s 143(1) of the Act. 3] The learned CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that there was a reasonable cause which resulted into delay in filing the audit report in Form 10B and similar delay in filing the Audit Report for A.Y.2017-18 and 2019-20 was condoned by the Dept. and hence, the deduction u/s 11 may be allowed by Hon'ble ITAT in view of the wide powers vested with Hon'ble Tribunal to do justice. 41 Without prejudice to the above grounds, assuming without admitting that the exemption u/s 11 is not allowable to the appellant trust, still it is submitted that the entire gross receipts of Rs.3,79,22,156 could not have been taxed as income without allowing the deduction of Rs.3,75,46,321 towards expenditure incurred for earning such receipts and only net surplus of Rs.3,75,835 could have been taxed as income in the hands of the appellant trust. 5] The appellant craves leave to add/ alter/ amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Charitable Trust (Education Society) registered u/s 12AA of the IT Act. The return for A.Y. 2018-19 was filed on 02-07-2018 on NIL income after claiming exemption of Rs.3,79,22,156/- u/s 11 of The IT Act. The audit report in Form 10B was obtained duly audited dated 10-05-2018. Inadvertently, the same was submitted online on 05-10-2020 which accordingly delayed by 826 days. The delay thus ITA No.2683/PUN/2024 3 is only for uploading the audit report in Form 10B and there was no contravention of any of the objects of the trust or any contravention any way of sections 11(1)(a), 12 or 13 of the IT Act. The trust did apply its income towards the objects of the trust. The intimation u/s 143(1) was issued by the CPC, Banglore determining income of Rs.3,79,22,156/- as against NIL income returned by the assessee after claiming exemption u/s 11(1) of the IT Act. 4. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-6, Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-6, Delhi is unjustified. Ld. AR further submitted before the Bench that under identical facts and similar circumstances & for the same asstt year the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Sikar Zilla Welfare Trust vs. ITO in ITA No.691/Kol/2024 dated 28.08.2024 has decided that filing of audit report is procedural requirement and assessee has e-filed the report post prescribed due date and delay was on account of technical glitches therefore, the delay in filing of audit report in Form 10B was condoned. Ld. AR also relied on the ITA No.2683/PUN/2024 4 judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Laxmanarayan Dev Shrishan Seva Khendra, (2024) 167 taxmann.com 548 (Gujarat) in this regard. Ld. AR alternatively submitted that without allowing the benefit of expenses claimed as per books of accounts the gross receipt is assessed as taxable income which is also unjustified. Accordingly, Ld. AR prayed before the Bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-6, Delhi and further requested to allow the benefit of section 11 of the IT Act to the assessee. 6. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue supported the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. 7. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book and copy of case laws furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that admittedly the assessee trust uploaded the audit report in Form 10B belatedly i.e. on 05.10.2020 however, the income tax return was filed in time and even the audit report in form 10B was also obtained within the prescribed time limit. We also find that the intimation order u/s 143(1) was passed on 17.10.2019 denying the ITA No.2683/PUN/2024 5 benefit of section 11 regarding application of income for charitable purposes since CPC did not find the audit report in Form 10B. Subsequently, the assessee filed rectification u/s 154 which was also rejected. It was also the contention of Ld. AR that Ld. CIT(A) did not provided proper opportunity of hearing since only two notices were issued fixing the date of hearing in short span of 10 days only however due to some misunderstanding the notices of hearing could not be seen by the assessee which resulted in unfortunate ex-parte impugned order. It was also the contention of Ld. AR that a Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has already decided the identical issue arising on similar facts of the case for the same asstt year wherein it has been held that the filing of Form 10B is not mandatory but only procedural. In this regard, Ld. AR relied on the order passed in the case of M/s. Sikar Zilla Welfare Trust (supra) wherein the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under :- “04. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We observe that the assessee is a trust and the return of income for A.Y. 2018-19, was furnished within the prescribed time limit under Section 139(1) of the Act on 22nd August, 2018. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Act but CPC denied the exemption because audit report on From10B was e-filed belatedly on 23rd March, 2020, i.e., after filing of income tax return. The assessee also filed a condonation petition under Section 119(2)(b) to learned Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for condonation of ITA No.2683/PUN/2024 6 delay. However, since the delay was not condoned until the time when the impugned order was framed, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the action of CPC. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee has referred to various decision of this Tribunal as binding precedence and on going through the order of this Tribunal in case of Manav Seva Trust (supra), we find that similar issue has been adjudicated where benefit of section 11 of the Act was denied for delay in filing form 10B. This Tribunal held in favour of the assessee holding that filing of form 10B is merely a procedural requirement and the defect is curable. The relevant finding of this Tribunal in case of Manav Seva Trust (supra) reads as under: - “3. We have considered the submissions by both the ld. A/R and ld. D/R and also perused the orders of ld. AO and the ld. CIT(A). Ld. A/R has relied on the case of Hari Gyan Pracharak Trust vs. DCIT in ITA No. 245/AHD/2021, order dated 16.06.2023. In this case, the Coordinate Bench has held that since filing of Form-10B is merely a procedural requirement, any defect in that is curable. It is seen that the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Oneness Educational and Charitable Trust vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) reported in [2024] 161 taxmann.com 544 (Orissa) has held that the oversight in not filing Form-10B within the due date was to be condoned and the exemption was to be allowed and granted. Also, the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of Global Organization for Development vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) reported in [2024] 162 taxmann.com 633 (Telangana) has held that the delay on the part of the assessee in submitting Form-10B was to be condoned and the matter remanded back to the file of the AO for passing appropriate order on merits. Similarly, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Al Jamia Mohammediyah Education Society vs. Commissioner of Income- tax (Exemptions) reported in [2024] 162 taxmann.com 114 (Bombay) has held that where the assessee Trust belatedly submitted Form-10B, along with return, on account of oversight by the Chartered Accountant, the delay in filing of Form-10B deserves to be condoned. In fact, some relevant portions from the said order deserves to be extracted as under: “■ Admittedly, Petitioner is a charitable trust and had been filing its returns and Form 10B for AY 2015-16, for AY 2017-18 to AY 2021-22 within the due dates. On this ground alone, delay condonation application should have been allowed because the failure to file returns for AY 2016-17 could be only due to human error. Even in the impugned order, there is no allegation of mala fide. As held by the Gujarat High Court in Sarvodaya Charitable Trust v. ITO (Exemption) [2021] 125 taxmann.com 75/278 Taxman 148, the approach in the cases of the present type should be equitious, balancing and judicious. Technically, strictly and liberally speaking, Respondent No.1 might be ITA No.2683/PUN/2024 7 justified in denying the exemption by rejecting such condonation application, but an assessee, a public charitable trust with almost over thirty years, which otherwise satisfies the condition for availing such exemption, should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned. [Para 6] ■ Moreover, the Petitioner does not appear to have been lethargic or lacking in bona fides in making the claim beyond the period of limitation which should have a relevance to the desirability and expedience for exercising such power. Such routine exercise of powers would neither be expedient nor desirable, since the entire machinery of tax calculation, processing of assessment and further recoveries or refunds, would get thrown out of gear, if such powers are routinely exercised without considering its desirability and expedience to do so to avoid genuine hardship. [Para 7] ■ In a similar matter in Shree Jain Swetamber Murtipujak Tapagachha Sangh v. CIT (Exemptions) [2024] 161 taxmann.com114 (Bombay) was also a case where auditor had due to oversight not filed Form 10B. The Court held that the error on the part of auditor cannot be rejected but should be accepted as a reasonable cause shown by the trust management. In that case also, Petitioner did not suo moto realize its mistake and filed a condonation request only after Centralised Processing Centre (“CPC”) sent an intimation about non-filing of Form 10B. [Para 8] ■ Having considered the matter in its entirety, one is satisfied that the delay was not intentional or deliberate. Petitioner cannot be prejudiced on account of an ignorance or error committed by professional engaged by Petitioner. Respondent No.1 ought to have exercised the powers conferred. [Para 9] ■ In the circumstances, this Writ Petition has to be allowed and is hereby allowed in terms of prayer clause. ■ Since the delay has been condoned, Respondent shall process Petitioner’s returns in accordance with law by giving effect to this order on the basis that Form No.10B has been filed within time. [Para 11]” 4. Considering the discussions made above, the delay in filing of Form10B is hereby condoned and it is directed that the appellant be allowed exemption as would be due to him as per law. The ld. AO is directed accordingly.” 05. Similar issue was also deal with by this Tribunal in Bangarh Educational Welfare Trust (supra), where also the facts are almost ITA No.2683/PUN/2024 8 identical and the assessee was given relief by this Tribunal observing as under: - “12. Now, the second reason for which lower authorities have denied the deduction u/s 11 of the Act is of filing the belated audit report on form 10B of the Act. Now, clause (b) of section 12A(1) of the Act provides for a condition that if the income of a trust exceeds a maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax in the previous year the account have to be audited and the person in receipt of such income furnishes the audit report before the specified date. In the case of the assessee, Form No.10B was to be filed and the relevant rule is rule 17B of the Income Tax Rules which provides that the report of audit of the accounts of a trust or institution which is required to be furnished under Clause (b) of section 12A, shall be in Form No.10B. 13. Now, on perusal of the Form 10B, we notice that the same is required to be submitted electronically, one month prior to the due date of the filing of return of income. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the audit report on form 10B has been uploaded on 30.03.2019 which is even after the date of filing the return of income on 15.11.2018. Now, before us, it has been contended by the ld. counsel for the assessee that filing of audit report is directory in nature and even if report is submitted in time before the conclusion of the assessment proceedings, the same needs to be considered. Though the assessee referred to the various decisions, we find it pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarvodaya Charitable Trust vs. ITO(Exemption) (supra) wherein Para 32 of the said judgment reads as follows: “32. We may also refer to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries Ltd. [1993] 201 ITR 325 (Guj), wherein it is held that the provision regarding furnishing of audit report with the return has to be treated as a procedural proviso. It is directory in nature and its substantial compliance would suffice. In that case, the assessee had not produced the audit report along with the return of income but produced the same before the completion of the assessment. This Court took the view that the benefit of exemption should not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the same and it is permissible for the assessee to produce the audit report at a later stage either before the Income-tax Officer or before the appellate authority by assigning sufficient cause.” 14. In the above judgment, Hon’ble Court has held that filing of audit report is directory in nature and its substantial compliance would suffice. The ld. Departmental Representative failed to place before us any other binding precedents of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court or the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, considering the ratio laid down in the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarvodaya Charitable ITA No.2683/PUN/2024 9 Trust vs. ITO(Exemption) (supra), we find that though the audit report has been uploaded after the filing of return of income but the said report has been signed by the auditor on 28.10.2018 and the copy of this report is placed at 40- 41 of paper book and the date of audit report is prior to the filing of the return of income, therefore, it is presumed that conducting of audit for preparation of audit report is before e-filing of the return of income but as claimed by the assessee due to technical glitches, the report was uploaded after filing the return of income. 15. Though the Hon’ble Court holds that the report should be considered even filed in the course of assessment proceedings, or before in appellate authority, however, we notice that in the instant case, the case of the assessee was not selected for scrutiny assessment and it was mere processing of return by the computer with the set program. Had it been the case of scrutiny proceeding u/s 143(3) of the Act, the case could have been different. The ld. A.O may had an opportunity to go through the audit report. But still when the issue came before ld. CIT(A) who also possesses co-terminus power with that of A.O and as per section 251(1)(a) of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) in disposing the appeal against order of assessment has the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, therefore, though, it was not possible to entertain the audit report while processing the return u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act, but the ld. CIT(A) was well within its power to have entertained the said report and examined the same as could have been done by the A.O. 16. We, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances and respectfully following the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case Sarvodaya Charitable Trust vs. ITO(Exemption) (supra) , we are of the considered view that since the case of assessee is for A.Y 2018-19 and CBDT came up with a circular dated 23.04.2019 specially for A.Y 2018-19 providing that return of income to be filed within the time allowed u/s 139 of the Act, the assessee has complied with the conditions provided in subclause (b) and (ba) to section 12 and there is no dispute at the end of the revenue authorities that the assessee is carrying on charitable activities, for which it has been granted registration u/s 12A of the Act, the benefit of section 11 and 12 should be given to the assessee and deductions claimed by the assessee are, therefore, allowed. Thus, Ground Nos.1 to 4 of the assessee are allowed.” 06. Going through the above decision, we find that the same are applicable on the facts of the instant case and respectfully following the decision of this Tribunal and taking a consistent view, we hereby hold that since filing of audit report is procedural requirement and assessee has efiled the report post prescribed due date and delay was on ITA No.2683/PUN/2024 10 account of technical glitches, therefore, condone the delay in filing of audit report on form 10B and direct the jurisdictional Assessing Officer to give benefit of Section 11 of the Act if the assessee is otherwise found eligible. Finding of the learned CIT (A) set aside and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are hereby allowed.” 8. Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Sikar Zilla Welfare Trust (supra), we set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to give benefit of section 11 of the IT Act if the assessee is otherwise found eligible. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 25th day of April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 25th April, 2025. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Addl/JCIT(A)-6, Delhi. 4. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "