Visha Oswal Tap. Shantibhuvan Upashray And Derasar Vs CIT (Gujarat High Court)
The petitioner, a charitable and religious trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 since 07.08.1979, challenged the order dated 09.09.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) under Section 119(2)(b) rejecting its application for condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10B for Assessment Year 2015-16.
For the relevant assessment year, the trust reported total income of ₹15,73,887 and application of income of ₹16,13,547, resulting in excess expenditure of ₹39,660. Its books of account were audited on 07.05.2015, and Form No. 10B, being the audit report under Section 12A(b), was also obtained on the same date. The return of income under Section 139(4A) was filed on 26.09.2015 claiming exemption under Section 11. However, Form No. 10B was not uploaded electronically along with the return because of an alleged mistake by the clerical staff of the trust’s Chartered Accountant, who was suffering from a brain tumour, remained bedridden for a prolonged period and subsequently passed away on 14.10.2018.
The return was processed under Section 143(1), and by intimation dated 15.09.2016, exemption under Section 11 was denied for want of Form No. 10B. Income was assessed at ₹15,73,890 and a demand of ₹3,72,480 was raised. The trust thereafter filed multiple rectification applications under Section 154, all of which were rejected. Form No. 10B was ultimately uploaded electronically on 28.03.2018. The trust also filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently sought condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b). After issuing a show-cause notice and considering the trust’s explanation, the Commissioner rejected the condonation application on 09.09.2019 on the ground that the explanation did not establish genuine hardship. A subsequent application relying upon CBDT Circular No. 6 of 2020 was also not entertained as the earlier application had already been rejected. The present writ petition challenged the order dated 09.09.2019.
