Condoning delay in filing audit report in Form 10B as CA of the assessee was not aware of newly introduced online filing – SLP of Revenue dismissed
In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the Revenue against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in condoning delay in filing audit report in Form 10B as Chartered Accountant of the assessee was not aware of online filing which was newly introduced and that mistake was unintentional and oversight.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4991 (2026) (01) abcaus.in SC
In The instant case, there was a delay of 687 days in filing audit report in form 10B for the Financial Year 2016-17. The assessee applied to Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) for condonation of delay. The reason given for delay, was that the Chartered Accountant (CA) of the assessee was not aware of online filing which was newly introduced and that mistake was unintentional and oversight.
However, the CIT(E) rejected the application for condonation holding that explanation given was not a genuine reason for grant of condonation of delay u/s 119(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
As a result, the assessee challenged the order passed by CIT(E) before the Hon’ble High Court by way of filing a Writ Petition.
The Revenue opposed the petition and justified the impugned order, contending that the reason given was not genuine.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the application was already filed on 18.8.2018. Also, an honest reason had been given on record for seeking condonation of delay. It was also not in dispute that the audit report was already filed, and not condoning the delay would result in non-considerations of the exemptions, and considering that the petitioner was a trust, engaged in providing medical aid to the under privileged.
The Hon’ble High Court noted the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court which favoured the charitable trust in directing Income Tax Department to condone the delay in filing Form 10B as the error was due to a professional (CA/Auditor) and not mala fide.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that in view of the nature of work being done by the petitioner and the fact that the audit report had already been filed and considering the reason which appeared to be an honest one, it was a fit case to condone the delay.
As a result, the impugned order was quashed and set aside and the delay in filing the audit report u/s 10B was quashed and set aside subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the Raman Science Centre.
Not satisfied with the judgment of the High Court, the Department challenged it before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing a Special Leave Petition. However, the Apex Court dismissed the SLP with the following observations,
“In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in exercise of our discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
There is no bar in penalty u/s 271B for non-audit u/s 44AB if penalty u/s 271A is also levied for…
Cash book cannot be rejected when availability of stock in trade is not disputed as per stock register which is…
Section 148 of Income Tax Act after 01.04.2021, does not even require recording reason to believe. In a recent judgment,…
Income Tax Department, Lucknow is hiring Young Professional for assisting the Departmental Officers posted in various benches of ITAT, Lucknow…
Burden of proof is on assessee to adduce cogent evidence that land sold was an agricultural land – Supreme Court…
Civil Court decreed refund of security deposit of VAT era as in GST Regime there is no requirement of security…