| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 1314
|
| Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras |
| Case No : WP. No. 30769 of 2024 & WMP. No. 33372 of 2024 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN |
| Parties : Anbukarangalin Anbuillam Versus The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: I. Dinesh, Advocate. For the Respondents: V.J. Arulraj, Senior Standing Counsel. |
| Date of Judgment : 03-02-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Constitution of India - Under Art 226 -
|
| Summary :- |
Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned:
- Art.226 of Constitution of India
- Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
- Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961
- Section 44A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
- Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
- Section 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
- Circular No.2/2020 dated 03.01.2020
- Order No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1067196611(1) dated 31.07.2024
- Rectification Order dated 02.01.2020
- Intimation dated 26.09.2019
Catch Words:
condonation of delay, procedural violation, Form 10B, assessment year, substantial benefit, delay, natural disaster, lenient view, benefit under Sections 11 & 12, costs, Writ of Certiorari
Summary:
The petitioner filed a writ under Art.226 seeking certiorari and records of an order passed under Sec. 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 rejecting his condonation of a 61‑day delay in filing Form 10B for AY 2018‑19. The respondent authority cited lack of supporting evidence for a claimed natural disaster. The Court noted that the delay, though procedural, was marginal and that the petitioner was otherwise entitled to benefits under Sections 11 and 12. Relying on consistent judicial practice, the Court held that such procedural lapses should not deny substantial tax benefits. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the respondent was directed to process the return afresh. The petition was allowed without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Art.226 of Constitution of India seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in DIN and Order No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1067196611(1) dated 31.07.2024 order u/s.119 (2) (b) of the IT Act, 1961 on the file of the 1st Respondent for the AY 2018-19 and quash the same.)
1. Mr.V.J.Arulraj, learned Senior Standing Counsel takes notice for the Respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondents.
3. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned Order dated 31.07.2024 passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. by the 1st respondent for the Assessment Year 2018-2019.
4. By the impugned order, the application filed for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B dated 18.05.2023 by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year has been rejected by the 1st respondent with the following observation :-
“4.1 During the hearing, the assessee trust’s authorised representative Mr.Surya Kumar C.A explained that there was a natural disaster in the village during that year and hence could not finalise the books of accounts and filing of form 10B was delayed. But, the assessee has not submitted any supporting documents or evidence in favour of its claim.”
5. It is also noticed that there was delay in filing Form 10B by the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 as well, which has been mentioned in paragraph No. 5.3 of impugned order, which is extracted as under :-
“5.3 Further, this office has taken a lenient view by condoning the delay in filing form 10B in the assessee’s case for the AY 2019-20 as the delay was 11 days.”
6. As far as the Assessment Year 2018-2019 is concerned, which is the subject matter in this Writ Petition, there was a delay of 61 days in filing Form 10B by the petitioner. In this case, as Form 10B audit report was filed on 31.12.2018 under Section 44 AB of Income Tax Act, 1961, the petitioner ought to have filed the Form 10B along with Return of Income on 30.10.2018 i.e., one month prior to the date of filing Return of Income on 31.10.2018. In this case, however, the petitioner filed the Return of Income belatedly on 28.12.2018 to claim benefit under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent.
8. In the instant case, there is procedural violation in filing Form 10B within the prescribed time as is required under Sec.44A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which comes in the way of petitioner getting substantial benefit under the Act. The 1st Respondent cannot be found fault as the 1st Respondent is bound by Circular No.2/2020 dated 03.01.2020. However, the said Circular is not binding on this Court.
9. The consistent view taken of this court under similar circumstances is to extend the benefit under Section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Such benefit cannot be denied to a trust or an institution for a mere procedural irregularity. If such a trust or an institution is otherwise entitled to substantial benefit.
10. Since there is only a marginal delay of 61 days in filing Form 10B by the petitioner, the substantial benefit of Section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be denied. Therefore, the delay in filing Form 10B deserves to be condoned and is accordingly condoned to the petitioner.
11. The 2nd respondent is accordingly directed to process the Return of Income afresh in view of intimation dated 26.09.2019 as modified by a Rectification Order dated 02.01.2020.
12. This Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
|
| |
