Non condoning delay for filling Form No. 10B cannot be challenged before ITAT

Grievance for not condoning delay for filling Form No. 10B cannot be addressed by way of appeal before ITAT

In a recent judgment, the ITAT has held that it can not entertain an appeal challenging the rejection of condonation of delay in filing audit report in Form No. 10B

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3850 (2024) (01) ITAT

In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax [Exemption] / CIT(E) in rejecting the application for condonation of the delay in filing Form 10B.

The appellant assessee was are that applicant-society is a public charitable trust established in the year 1953 and registered under State Trust Act. In the Form No.10B of the audit report filed by the assessee, by error the date of audit had been mentioned as of 2018 instead of 2017, for which assessee e-filed Form 10B with some delay.

As per the contention of the assessee-trust, audit was completed and obtained report well within the due date prescribed in the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

However, CIT(E) rejected Form No.10B stating that „assessee had failed to establish that its accounts were audited and on the basis of the same the return of income was filed. The assessee once again filed application for condonation of delay in filing of Form No.10B, however, the CIT(E) rejected the subsequent application also by holding that assessee‟s earlier application was rejected.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the CIT(E), the assessee preferred appeal before the ITAT.

The Tribunal opined that the grievance for not condoning the delay for filling audit report in Form No. 10B cannot be addressed by way of appeal before the Tribunal. That, it is only the CBDT which has power for condoning the delay in filing Form No.10B with regard to its Circular No. 10/2019 dated 22/05/2019.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable and dismissed it.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• CA Misconduct – Order quashed as judgment not passed by same members who heard arguments.
• Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act – SC
• CIT notice u/s 263 quashed as AO rightly took DVO value of property as actual sale price
• Extension of timeline for implementation of Ship To GSTIN & Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities
• No protective addition required when additions is confirmed in hands of searched person – ITAT