JTL EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION) CHANDIGARH

CWP/7179/2024

AI Insights

The case involves JTL Educational Foundation, the petitioner, who submitted an audit report in Form 10B after a delay of 30 days beyond the prescribed deadline. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) was the respondent, contesting the belated submission. The primary legal issue was whether the delay in submitting the audit report could be condoned and the report considered for the purpose of tax exemption eligibility. The court found that the delay could be condoned and emphasized that the audit report, once submitted, should be considered in the decision-making process regarding tax exemptions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 765029 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VARUN ISSAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDHI BANSAL; RIDHI BANSAL
• Keywords: Audit report; Delay condonation; Form 10B; Income tax exemption
• Section: 10B

Judgement Text

"CWP-7179-2024 267 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT JTL EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION COMMISSIONER OF CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Ms. Sidhi Bansal, Advocate and Ms. Ridhi Bansal, for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, for the SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Admittedly, the audit report submitted by the petitioner prescribed date 2. The delay of 30 days cannot be said to be such which cannot be condoned. The respondents have filed their reply i.e.CWP the only contention raised belatedly uploaded. 3. Counsel for the Revenue submits that the filing of Form 10B within the prescribed exemption 2024 (O&M) Page 1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH JTL EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Ms. Sidhi Bansal, Advocate and Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents/Revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Admittedly, the audit report was prepared in Form 10B and was submitted by the petitioner albeit after a period of 30 days of the prescribed date of filing of audit report. The delay of 30 days cannot be said to be such which cannot be condoned. The respondents have filed their reply i.e.CWP-7180-2024 which is considered in the present case the only contention raised by the respondent is that the audit report was belatedly uploaded. Counsel for the Revenue submits that the filing of Form 10B within the prescribed timeline is a basic eligibility exemption. It is also submitted that the petitioner IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7179-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.11.2024 . . . . Petitioner INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH . . . . Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH Sr. Standing Counsel was prepared in Form 10B and was after a period of 30 days of the of filing of audit report. The delay of 30 days cannot be said to be such which cannot be condoned. The respondents have filed their reply in the connected case 2024 which is considered in the present case. However, by the respondent is that the audit report was Counsel for the Revenue submits that the filing of Form 10B within eligibility condition for seeking It is also submitted that the petitioner had been negligent in (O&M) .2024 Petitioner . . . . Respondent was prepared in Form 10B and was after a period of 30 days of the The delay of 30 days cannot be said to be such which cannot be in the connected case . However, by the respondent is that the audit report was Counsel for the Revenue submits that the filing of Form 10B within condition for seeking had been negligent in MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.12 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7179-2024 timely and 2021 delay. 4. We find that the power to condone the delay is available with the department. The audit report, once it is on record, ought to be considered and the same ought not be ignored. In view thereto, we condone the delay and direct that the audit report The order dated 07.03.2024 is set aside. fresh order on merits. 5. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. 6. All pending applications also stand disposed of. November 11, 2024 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2024 (O&M) Page 2 of 2 timely filing audit reports for assessment years 2019 and 2021-22, and therefore there should not be any condonation of We find that the power to condone the delay is available with the department. The audit report, once it is on record, ought to be considered and the same ought not be ignored. In view thereto, we condone the delay and direct that the audit report The order dated 07.03.2024 is set aside. fresh order on merits. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA , 2024 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No filing audit reports for assessment years 2019-2020, 2020-21, 22, and therefore there should not be any condonation of We find that the power to condone the delay is available with the department. The audit report, once it is on record, ought to be considered and the same ought not be ignored. In view thereto, we condone the delay and direct that the audit report to be taken on record. The order dated 07.03.2024 is set aside. The respondent shall pass a All pending applications also stand disposed of. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 21, 22, and therefore there should not be any condonation of We find that the power to condone the delay is available with the department. The audit report, once it is on record, ought to be considered and the same ought not be ignored. In view thereto, we en on record. espondent shall pass a MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.12 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "