ROSHNI HOMI DAJI BAHU UDDESHIYA SHIKSHA AVM SARVAJANIK NYAS,INDORE V. CPC, BENGLURU, BENGLURU

ITA 142/IND/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Roshni Homi Daji Bahu Uddeshiya Shiksha AVM Sarvajanik Nyas, a trust engaged in charitable activities, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) that upheld the Assessing Officer's decision denying exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act due to a procedural lapse in filing the audit report. The trust argued that the delay was procedural and should not affect their eligibility for tax exemptions, citing various judicial precedents that supported their position. The Tribunal, referencing similar cases and judicial decisions, agreed with the trust and remanded the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773017 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Indore Contract Bridge Association Vs. CPC, Bangalore, Navratna Sukrat Foundation Vs. CPC, Bangalore, DCIT Vs. Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College, Indore, ITO, Exemption Ward Vs. Society for Education Conscietisation Awareness & Training, Puravanchal Lokhit Mandal Vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Vadodara, Hari Gyan Pracharak Trust Vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore, Sarvodaya Charitable Trust Vs. ITO, Exemption, Indian Panel Board Manufacturer Vs. DCIT Tax Appeal
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FORASSESSEEEXPLAINEDTHEFACTSOFCASE; WITHREFERENCETOTHE; FORASSESSEESUBMITTEDTHATTHEASSESSEEISENGAGEDIN; FORREVENUEDUTIFULLYRELIEDUPONORDERSOFLOWERAUTHORITIES; FORTHEASSESSEEINORDERTO; FORTHEASSESSEEWHICHCOULDNOTBESAID; SHRIASHISHPORWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIS.S.DESHPANDE; DECISIONIN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Charitable institution; Benefit of exemption; Procedural lapse
• Section: 143(3); 11; 12AA; 12A; 119(2)(b); 10B

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 12 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौरɊायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.142/Ind/2025 Assessment Year:2023-24 Roshni Homi Daji Bahu Uddeshiya Shiksha AVM Sarvajanik Nyas, 119, Kanlindi Kunj, Pipliyahana Square, Indore बनाम/ Vs. CPC, Bengaluru (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AAETR9004R Assessee by Shri S.S. Deshpande, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.09.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 23.01.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of intimation of assessment dated 18.11.2024 passed by learned CPC, Bengaluru [“AO”] u/s 143(1) of Income- tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2023-24, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: Printed from counselvise.com Roshni Homi Daji Bahu Uddeshiya Shiksha AVM Sarvajanik Nyas ITA No. 142/Ind/2025 – AY 2023-24 Page 2 of 12 “1. The Ld. ADDL. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Corpus donation received by the Trust is not income of the Trust and has erred in upholding the amount bequethed by will is the income of the Trust. 2. The Ld. ADDL. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the form 10B and form 10 filed by the assessee and in not condoning the delay for filing Form 10B when the return was filed on the basis of the Audit Report obtained by the assessee. 3. The Ld. ADDL. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the CBDT circulars and also the judgment of the Bombay High Court and has erred in not following the judgment of the jurisdictional Indore Tribunal wherein it is held that even though Form 10B is filed late, the benefit of section 11 to 13 of IT Act cannot be denied. 4 The addition of Rs. 1,03,26,610/- may please be deleted and the demand raised may please be cancelled. 5. The assessee craves to amend, alter or delete any of the ground of appeal.” 2. Ld. AR for assessee explained the facts of case, with reference to the documents held on record, as under: (i) The assessee is a trust created by virtue of a Will of Late Smt. Perin Daji, through a Trust-Deed dated 04.07.2022. It is engaged in charitable purpose. (ii) On 24.03.2023, the assessee obtained provisional registration u/s 12A of the Act from Income-tax Department for AY 2023-24 to 2025- 26. (iii) On 29.07.2023, the assessee filed return of AY 2023-24 under consideration. The due date for filing return as per section 139(4A)/139(1) was 30.11.2023. In the return so filed, the assessee declared income of Rs. 1,03,26,610/- [consisting of Rs. 1,03,00,000/- Printed from counselvise.com Roshni Homi Daji Bahu Uddeshiya Shiksha AVM Sarvajanik Nyas ITA No. 142/Ind/2025 – AY 2023-24 Page 3 of 12 received in terms of Will (+) Rs. 26,633/- on account of interest income (-) Bank charges of Rs. 23/-]; claimed accumulation of income of Rs. 1,03,00,000/- u/s 11(2) and unconditional exemption of Rs. 26,610/- u/s 11(1)(a); and thereby offered taxable/total income of Rs. Nil. (iv) On 09.01.2024, the assessee filed Auditors Report [Form No. 10BB]. Further, on the very same day, the assessee also filed a Statement for accumulation of income u/s 11(2) [Form No. 10]. (v) On 24.09.2024, the assessee filed Revised Auditors Report [Form No. 10BB]. Further, the assessee also filed a Revised Statement for accumulation of income u/s 11(2) for Rs. 26,633/- [Form No. 10]. The variation made by assessee was for the reason that the receipt of Rs. 1,03,00,000/- under the Will was a “corpus receipt” but wrongly treated as ordinary income in original audited accounts. Accordingly, the assessee re-classified the receipt of Rs. 1,03,00,000/- as “corpus receipt”; excluded the same from Income & Expenditure A/c and declared in revised Balance-Sheet as “Corpus of the Trust”. Copies of original and revised accounts (audited) are filed at Pages 12-15 of Paper-Book. (vi) On 18.11.2024, the AO processed assessee’s return u/s 143(1) observing that there was a violation of section 13(10) which, according to Ld. AR, means the assessee had not filed Audit Report [Form No. Printed from counselvise.com Roshni Homi Daji Bahu Uddeshiya Shiksha AVM Sarvajanik Nyas ITA No. 142/Ind/2025 – AY 2023-24 Page 4 of 12 10BB] by due date u/s 139(1) as required by section 12A(1)(b)(ii). Accordingly, the AO denied benefit of exemption u/s 11 in toto and assessed the gross income of Rs. 1,03,26,610/- as taxable/total income and created demand of tax and interest. (vii) Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but the CIT(A) rejected assessee’s appeal by following order: “5.7 In order to get entitlement for claiming exemption of its income u/s 11 of the Act, it is mandatory on the part of the appellant to file the Form No. 10BB in due time or get a condonation of delay in filing the Form 10BB from the CIT (Exemptions). The AO cannot allow the deductions u/s 11 on facts and in circumstances of the law except when a Court directs under alternative remedy or CIT (Exemptions) condones the delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. Keeping in view of the above, I am of the opinion that the AO has rightly denied exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act and rightly made addition of Rs. 1,03,26,610/- to the income of the appellant. Therefore, ground No. 1 to 6 are dismissed.” (viii) Now, the assessee has come before us by way of next appeal. 3. In the backdrop of above facts, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee did not file Auditors Report [Form No. 10BB] by due date u/s 139(1), therefore the AO has rejected assessee’s claim for exemption u/s 11/12. However, it is a fact that the assessee subsequently filed Audit Report/Revised Audit Report on 09.01.2024/24.09.2024 before passing of intimation by AO u/s 143(1) dated 18.11.2024. Therefore, the limited issue before this bench is whether in such a situation the assessee should be given the exemption u/s 11/12 or not? Printed from counselvise.com Roshni Homi Daji Bahu Uddeshiya Shiksha AVM Sarvajanik Nyas ITA No. 142/Ind/2025 – AY 2023-24 Page 5 of 12 4. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee is engaged in charitable activities and the registration granted to it by tax authorities u/s 12A was in force. That the delay in filing audit report is a procedural lapse and there is no other reason except this procedural lapse to deny the benefit of section 11/12 to assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee should not be denied the legitimate exemption of section 11/12 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 in Form No. 10BB filed by assessee belatedly on 09.01.2024 subsequently revised on 24.09.2024, is accepted, the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of exemption. Ld. AR submitted that in following decisions, the Hon’ble High Courts and ITAT Benches have held that the requirement of filing audit-report in time is one of the conditions for claiming benefit of exemption u/s 11/12 but it is a procedural-cum-directory requirement and even if the report is subsequently filed to AO, the exemption u/s 11/12 can’t be denied: (a) ITAT, Indore - Indore Contract Bridge Association Vs. CPC, Bangalore in ITA No. 403/Ind/2022 order dated 18.04.2023 (b) ITAT, Indore - Navratna Sukrat Foundation Vs. CPC, Bangalore, ITA No. 390/Ind/2022 dated 21.04.2023 (c) ITAT, Indore - DCIT Vs. Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College, Indore ITA No. 469/Ind/2018 order dated 06.11.2020 Printed from counselvise.com Roshni Homi Daji Bahu Uddeshiya Shiksha AVM Sarvajanik Nyas ITA No. 142/Ind/2025 – AY 2023-24 Page 6 of 12 (d) ITAT, Jodhpur - ITO, Exemption Ward Vs. Society for Education Conscietisation Awareness & Training, ITA No. 461/Jodh/2018 dated 06.05.2019 (e) ITAT, Ahmedabad - Puravanchal Lokhit Mandal Vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Vadodara, ITA No. 966/Ahd/2019, dated 30.11.2022 (f) ITAT, Ahmedabad - Hari Gyan Pracharak Trust Vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore in ITA No. 245/Ahd/2021 order dated 16.06.2023 (g) Hon’ble Gujrat High Court - Sarvodaya Charitable Trust Vs. ITO, Exemption (2021) 125 taxmann.com 75 (Gujrat) (h) Hon’ble Gujrat High Court - Indian Panel Board Manufacturer Vs. DCIT Tax Appeal No. 655 of 2022 dated 21.03.2023. 5. Ld. DR for revenue dutifully relied upon orders of lower authorities but, however, could not oppose the submissions of Ld. AR. 6. We have heard rival contentions of both sides and examined the present case in the light of judicial decisions. After a careful consideration, we make following analysis and adjudication: (i) So far as the allowability of exemption u/s 11/12 in a situation of delayed filing of audit report is concerned, the issue is settled in favour of assessee by ITAT, Indore in Indore Contract Bridge Association Vs. CPC, Bangalore in ITA No. 403/Ind/2022 order dated 18.04.2023. The relevant paras of the order of ITAT are re-produced below: “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 Printed from counselvise.com Roshni Homi Daji Bahu Uddeshiya Shiksha AVM Sarvajanik Nyas ITA No. 142/Ind/2025 – AY 2023-24 Page 7 of 12 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 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 Printed from counselvise.com Roshni Homi Daji Bahu Uddeshiya Shiksha AVM Sarvajanik Nyas ITA No. 142/Ind/2025 – AY 2023-24 Page 8 of 12 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: “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 Printed from counselvise.com Roshni Homi Daji Bahu Uddeshiya Shiksha AVM Sarvajanik Nyas ITA No. 142/Ind/2025 – AY 2023-24 Page 9 of 12 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 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: Printed from counselvise.com Roshni Homi Daji Bahu Uddeshiya Shiksha AVM Sarvajanik Nyas ITA No. 142/Ind/2025 – AY 2023-24 Page 10 of 12 “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 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. CIT- A 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.” Printed from counselvise.com Roshni Homi Daji Bahu Uddeshiya Shiksha AVM Sarvajanik Nyas ITA No. 142/Ind/2025 – AY 2023-24 Page 11 of 12 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.” Other decisions cited above have also taken a view that the delayed filing of audit-report is a mere procedural irregularity for which the exemption u/s 11/12 cannot be denied. (ii) In so far as the observation made by CIT(A) that the power to condone delay in filing of audit report is vested in jurisdictional Commissioner of Income-tax as per CBDT Circular or in Court under alternative remedy, we quote the following view taken by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in Para 5.6 of their judgement in Indian Panel Board Manufacturer Vs. DCIT Tax Appeal No. 655 of 2022 dated 21.03.2023. For clarity, we may mention that the Circular referred in the judgement is 7/18 dated 20.12.2018 which was a previous circular but it will not make any difference. The relevant para of the judgement is as under: “5.6 The tribunal further committed an error in appreciating the import of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act in as much as the application contemplated thereunder is only additional remedy for the assessee which could not be said to be compulsorily resorted to, by the assessee. The circular No. 7/18 dated 20.12.2018 issued u/s 119 of the Act could not be, therefore, said to have taken away the appellate remedy.” Printed from counselvise.com Roshni Homi Daji Bahu Uddeshiya Shiksha AVM Sarvajanik Nyas ITA No. 142/Ind/2025 – AY 2023-24 Page 12 of 12 7. In view of above discussion, we find that in present case, the assessee cannot be denied benefit of exemption u/s 11/12 as claimed in return for mere delay in filing of audit report in Form No. 10BB. 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. The assessee succeeds in this appeal. 8. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 25/09/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 25/09/2025 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order E COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore Printed from counselvise.com "