2025 (6) TMI 1865 - HC - Income Tax

Denial of benefit u/s 12A - delay of 353 days in submitting the audit report in Form-10B prescribed under Rule 17B of the IT Rules - HELD THAT - 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 u/s 12A - 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.10/2019 dated 22.05.2019. Ergo finding that there was genuine hardship faced by the petitioner during the relevant period and refusal to condone the delay invoking power u/s 119(2) of the IT Act being arbitrary exercise of discretion having regard to the fact-situation Order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the CIT (Exemption) Hyderabad-opposite party No.2 are 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 u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act and in consequence thereof the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)-opposite party No.2 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 2017-18 submitted on 19.03.2021 as if the same is filed within period specified invoking Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court were:

(a) Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) was justified in rejecting the petition for condonation of delay of 353 days in filing the audit report in Form 10B under Rule 17B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, for claiming exemption under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

(b) Whether the delay caused due to negligence of the auditor constitutes sufficient cause under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act to condone the delay in filing the audit report.

(c) Whether the discretion vested in the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 119(2)(b) and Circular No. 10/2019 dated 22.05.2019 was exercised appropriately and in consonance with principles of substantial justice.

(d) Whether the denial of exemption under Section 12A on the ground of delay in filing the audit report, despite the report being filed before assessment, is legally sustainable.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Justification for rejection of condonation of delay petition

Legal framework and precedents: Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act empowers the Commissioner of Income Tax to condone delay in filing documents upon sufficient cause being shown. Circular No. 10/2019 delegates discretionary power to the Commissioner to consider applications for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B. The Gujarat High Court decision in Sarvodaya Charitable Trust vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption) held that furnishing of the audit report is procedural and can be filed even before assessment.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the Commissioner rejected the petition for condonation of delay without appreciating the sufficient cause shown by the petitioner, i.e., negligence of the auditor and the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic situation. The Court emphasized that the discretion vested in the Commissioner under Section 119(2)(b) should be exercised pragmatically and not pedantically.

Key evidence and findings: The audit report was due on 31.03.2020 but was filed on 19.03.2021, resulting in a delay of 353 days. The petitioner had been availing exemption benefits since Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner contended that the delay was caused by auditor's negligence and the Covid-19 pandemic, which was not disputed by the Income Tax Department.

Application of law to facts: The Court held that the delay, though substantial, was caused by genuine hardship and negligence beyond the petitioner's control. The Commissioner failed to apply his mind conscientiously and did not consider the pandemic context and the principle that substantial justice prevails over technicalities.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Income Tax Department argued that no sufficient cause was shown and the rejection was justified. The Court, however, found that the petitioner's explanation was plausible and the Commissioner's rejection arbitrary.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Commissioner's order rejecting condonation of delay was liable to be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

Issue (b): Whether negligence of auditor constitutes sufficient cause

Legal framework and precedents: Sufficient cause under Section 119(2)(b) includes circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner, such as auditor's negligence, provided it is genuine and not mala fide. The Court in the present case also referred to the principle that procedural delays can be condoned to serve substantial justice.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the petitioner's contention that the delay was due to auditor's negligence, a factor beyond the petitioner's direct control. The Court further noted the pandemic context, which compounded difficulties in timely compliance.

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's explanation was unchallenged by the Income Tax Department. No evidence suggested mala fide intent or gross negligence on the petitioner's part.

Application of law to facts: The Court treated auditor's negligence coupled with the Covid-19 pandemic as sufficient cause to condone delay under Section 119(2)(b).

Treatment of competing arguments: The Department's contention that no genuine hardship was demonstrated was rejected as the Court found the petitioner's explanation credible.

Conclusions: Auditor's negligence in the pandemic context was held to constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Issue (c): Exercise of discretion by Commissioner under Section 119(2)(b) and Circular No.10/2019

Legal framework and precedents: Section 119(2)(b) confers discretionary power on the Commissioner to condone delay. Circular No. 10/2019 reiterates this power and guides its pragmatic exercise. The Court emphasized the principle that discretion must be exercised judiciously, balancing technical compliance with the ends of justice.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the Commissioner failed to exercise discretion in a conscientious and pragmatic manner. The rejection was based on technical considerations without giving due weight to the petitioner's explanation and the pandemic situation.

Key evidence and findings: The Commissioner's order did not reflect detailed consideration of the petitioner's grounds or the pandemic context. The Court relied on its previous judgment in Action Research for Health and Socio-economic Development vs. CBDT, which dealt with similar facts and emphasized substantial justice over technicalities.

Application of law to facts: The Court held that the Commissioner's order was an arbitrary exercise of discretion and thus unsustainable.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Department argued that discretion was rightly exercised; the Court disagreed, noting the absence of proper application of mind.

Conclusions: The Court set aside the Commissioner's order for failure to exercise discretion properly and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

Issue (d): Legality of denying exemption under Section 12A due to delay in filing audit report

Legal framework and precedents: Section 12A provides exemption from income tax subject to compliance with prescribed conditions, including filing of audit report under Rule 17B in Form 10B. The Gujarat High Court in Sarvodaya Charitable Trust held that filing of audit report is procedural and can be done even after filing returns but before assessment.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that denial of exemption solely on the ground of delay in filing the audit report, especially when filed before assessment, is unwarranted. The Court reiterated that procedural lapses should not defeat the substantive right to exemption.

Key evidence and findings: The audit report was filed on 19.03.2021, before completion of assessment for AY 2017-18. The petitioner had been enjoying exemption benefits since AY 2016-17.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities and procedural delays in filing audit reports should not result in denial of exemption.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Department contended strict compliance was necessary; the Court rejected this rigid approach.

Conclusions: The Court directed that the audit report be considered as if filed within the prescribed period and exemption benefits be granted accordingly.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"This Court is of the considered view that 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."

"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 is arbitrary exercise of discretion having regard to the fact-situation."

"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 2017-18 submitted on 19.03.2021, 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 procedural technicalities, the recognition of auditor's negligence and pandemic-related hardships as sufficient cause for condonation of delay, and the requirement for tax authorities to exercise discretion judiciously and not arbitrarily when considering condonation petitions under Section 119(2)(b).

Final determinations were that the order rejecting condonation of delay was set aside, the delay was condoned, and the audit report was to be considered as timely filed for the purpose of exemption under Section 12A for AY 2017-18.