9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1593 - HC - Income TaxExemption from payment of income tax u/s 12A denied - delay of 26 days in filing the audit report in Form 10B - HELD THAT - Benefit of exemption should not have been denied merely on account of delay in furnishing audit report which could be produced at a later stage either before the AO or the Appellate Authority by assigning sufficient cause. This Court also takes cognizance of the fact that at an around 13.03.2022 Covid-19 Pandemic was continuing and it is believed that the contention of the Senior Advocate for the Petitioner that on account of technical glitch the audit report could not be furnished. Such a stance of the petitioner sounds genuine since no objection is raised by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the CGST against such statement. This Court taking note of such identical plea and taking cognizance of Covid-19 Pandemic situation at and around the date of filing of audit report in 2022 has elaborately discussed the factors of consideration of petition for condonation of delay in the case of Action Research for Health and Socio-economic Development vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and others 2025 (5) TMI 1500 - ORISSA HIGH COURT Taking cognizance of well-established principle that when technical consideration and cause of substantial justice are pitted against each other it is the substantial justice which is to prevail this Court holds that mere technicality should not have been ground for claim of exemption under Section 12A of the IT Act. Thus the CIT has failed to consider the application for condonation of delay in its right earnest under the provisions of Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 read with power conferred by virtue of Circular No.16/2024 dated 18.11.2024. Ergo finding that there was genuine hardship faced by the petitioner during the relevant period and refusal to condone the delay invoking power under Section 119(2) of the IT Act being arbitrary exercise of discretion having regard to the fact-situation Order dated 15.06.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Hyderabad-opposite party No.1 (Annexure-1) is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the said authority concerned to consider audit report in Form 10B furnished under Rule 17B of the Income Tax Rules to claim exemption under Section 12A
The core legal questions considered in this judgment revolve around the exercise of discretion under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically:
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Filing Audit Report and Sufficient Cause for Condonation Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act empowers the CIT to condone delay in filing documents or returns if sufficient cause is shown. Rule 17B prescribes the filing of audit report in Form 10B for claiming exemption under Section 12A. The Court referred to the Gujarat High Court decision in Sarvodaya Charitable Trust vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), which held that furnishing of audit report is procedural and can be filed even before assessment. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the audit report was due by 15.02.2022 but was filed on 13.03.2022, resulting in a 26-day delay. The petitioner attributed this delay to a technical glitch amid the Covid-19 pandemic. The Court found this explanation plausible and observed that no objection was raised by the Income Tax Department regarding the technical glitch claim. Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner had been availing exemption benefits since Assessment Year 2012-13, indicating a consistent compliance history. The pandemic situation was ongoing during the relevant period, which the Court took into account as a genuine hardship. Application of Law to Facts: The Court emphasized that the CIT should have exercised discretion pragmatically rather than pedantically. The power to condone delay up to 365 days, as per Circular No.16/2024, was not properly applied. The Court highlighted the principle that substantial justice should prevail over mere technicalities. Treatment of Competing Arguments: While the CIT rejected the petition citing lack of sufficient cause, the Court disagreed with this approach, finding the rejection arbitrary and lacking proper application of discretion. Conclusion: The Court set aside the CIT's order rejecting condonation of delay and remitted the matter for reconsideration, directing that the audit report be accepted as if filed within time. 2. Nature of Filing Audit Report and Its Procedural Character Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court relied on the Gujarat High Court ruling that the audit report filing is procedural and can be submitted even after the return but before assessment. This principle underscores flexibility in procedural compliance. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court accepted that the audit report's late filing should not automatically disqualify the exemption claim, especially when the delay is short and justified. Application of Law to Facts: The petitioner's audit report was filed before assessment, reinforcing the procedural nature of the requirement. Conclusion: The procedural nature of filing the audit report supports the petitioner's claim and the Court's direction to condone the delay. 3. Discretionary Power under Section 119(2)(b) and Circular No.16/2024 Legal Framework: Section 119(2)(b) authorizes the CIT to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown. Circular No.16/2024 explicitly delegates power to the CIT to condone delay in filing Form 10B up to 365 days. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the CIT failed to apply the discretionary power conscientiously and pragmatically. The Court emphasized that discretion must be exercised to advance substantial justice, especially in light of pandemic-related difficulties and technical glitches. Application of Law to Facts: The 26-day delay was well within the 365-day limit specified in the Circular. The CIT's rejection without adequate appreciation of the circumstances was held to be an arbitrary exercise of discretion. Conclusion: The Court held that the CIT's order was unsustainable and must be set aside with directions to reconsider the application for condonation of delay. 4. Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic and Technical Glitch on Sufficient Cause Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court took judicial notice of the Covid-19 pandemic's impact on procedural compliance and referred to a similar case, Action Research for Health and Socio-economic Development vs. CBDT, where pandemic-related difficulties were considered sufficient cause for delay. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court recognized that the pandemic and associated technical issues constitute genuine hardship and sufficient cause for delay in filing. Application of Law to Facts: The petitioner's claim of technical glitch during the pandemic period was accepted as genuine, especially since no contrary evidence was presented. Conclusion: The Court found that the pandemic and technical issues justified condonation of delay. 5. Consequences of Denial of Exemption Due to Delay Legal Framework: Section 12A of the Income Tax Act provides exemption from income tax subject to compliance with procedural requirements, including audit report filing. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that denying exemption solely on technical delay without appreciating sufficient cause and discretion would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. Application of Law to Facts: Given the petitioner's long-standing exemption history and the short delay, the Court directed that the audit report be considered as timely filed, thereby preserving the exemption benefits. Conclusion: The Court ordered consequential relief to the petitioner by treating the audit report as timely filed. Significant Holdings: "Taking cognizance of well-established principle that when technical consideration and cause of substantial justice are pitted against each other, it is the substantial justice which is to prevail, this Court holds that mere technicality should not have been ground for claim of exemption under Section 12A of the IT Act." "The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad has not applied his conscientious mind in proper perspective... the refusal to condone the delay invoking power under Section 119(2) of the IT Act being arbitrary exercise of discretion having regard to the fact-situation." "The benefit of exemption should not have been denied merely on account of delay in furnishing audit report, which could be produced at a later stage either before the Assessing Officer or the Appellate Authority by assigning sufficient cause." "The matter is remitted to the said authority concerned to consider audit report in Form 10B furnished under Rule 17B of the Income Tax Rules to claim exemption under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act and in consequence thereof... the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) is directed to grant all consequential relief to the petitioner by taking into account the Audit Report in Form 10B pertaining to the Assessment Year 2021-22 submitted on 13.03.2022, as if the same is filed within period specified invoking Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961." Core principles established include the primacy of substantial justice over technicalities in tax procedural compliance, the necessity for the CIT to exercise discretion conscientiously under Section 119(2)(b), and the recognition of pandemic-related hardships and technical glitches as valid grounds for condonation of delay. The final determination was to set aside the CIT's order rejecting condonation of delay, to treat the audit report as timely filed, and to grant all consequential reliefs to the petitioner in relation to the exemption claim under Section 12A for Assessment Year 2021-22.
|
