Wp/31360/2023 Of M/S Shilparamam Arts, Crafts And Cultural Society, Hyderabad v. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax /Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Origanal Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 31360 OF 2023 Between: M/s Shilparamam Arts, Crafts & Cultural Society, Hyderabad, Survey No.64M, Shilparamam,ftIadhapur, Hyderabad - 500 033, Telangana. Represented by its General Manager, Mr.G.Anjaiah, S/o Mr. G.Gangaram. .....PETITIONER AND 1. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax /lncome TaxOfficer, New Delhi, Room No.401, , National Faceless Assessment Center 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New / National e-assessment Center,Delhi- 1 10 003.Officer, New Delhi, Room No.401, , National Faceless Assessment Center 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New / National e-assessment Center,Delhi- 1 10 003. 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax, [(Appeals), ]National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), lncome Tax Department, Delhi - 1 10 003.(NFAC), lncome Tax Department, Delhi - 1 10 003. 3. The Commissioner of lncome-Tax, [(Exemptrons), ][Andhra Pradesh, Telangana ][and]Odisha,2"d Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Opposite LB Sladium, [Basheerbagh, Hyderabad]- 500 004.Odisha,2"d Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Opposite LB Sladium, [Basheerbagh, Hyderabad]- 500 004. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia [praying ]that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court [may be pleased ][to]issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropflate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring,that. a. the order dated 31-07 -2023 (not served on the [Petrtioner till ]date), [passed by ][the]3'd Respondent, rejecting the [petition ]filed by the [Petitioner ][for ][condoning ][the ][delay, ][in]filing Form 108, for the Assessment Yea( 2017 [- ]['18, ]and [b. tlre order dated 01-06-2023](not served on the Petitioner till date), [passed ][u/s ][250 ][of ][the ][lncome Tax ][Act, ][196'l ][.]bearing DtN and Notice [No.lTBA/NFAC/ ][Sl25Ot2023-2411053384545( ][1), ][by ][the ][2"]Respondent, for the Assessment [Year ?017-18, ][as ][arbitrary, mechanical, ][illegal, ][bad ][in]law, violative of the [principles ][of ][natural ]iustice [apart from ][being violatlve of ][Articles ][14,] 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitutron of tndia and the lncome Tax Act, 1961. andconsequently set astde the same tn the interests of justice.l.A.NO:1 OF 2023consequently set astde the same tn the interests of justice.l.A.NO:1 OF 2023 Petrtion under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffrdavit filed in support of the petitton. the High court may be pleased to stay all furtherproceedings, rncluding any recovery, pursuant to the order dated o1-06-2023 (not servedon lhe Petrtioner trll date), passed u/s 250 of the lncome Tax Act. 1961 bearing DIN andNotice No.lIBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24t1o53384s45(1), by the 2"d Respondent, for theAssessment Year 2017 - 18, pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for: the Respondents : SRI A.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY The Court made the fo owing ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAIUJI WRIT PETITION No.3136O of 2o23 ORDERItt'r [[1ott ][ltle ][.Srr ][, ][/rrst ][rcc ][P.S,Al]f KOSIIYT] 'lhe prcsent writ pctition is frlcd tl thc pctitioncr assailing theimpugncd order dated 31.O7.2023 passcd by the respondentNo.3/The Commrssioncr of Income-Tax (Exemptions) and thesubsequent consequential orders passcd thereon- 2. Hcard Sri A.V.A. Siva Kartikeva, leilrned counsel lor thepetitioner and Sri A. Ramakrishna Rt:ddr,, lcarrncd counscl for therespondcn t- Dcpartm(in t Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for: the Respondents : SRI A.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY The Court made the fo owing ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAIUJI WRIT PETITION No.3136O of 2o23 ORDERItt'r [[1ott ][ltle ][.Srr ][, ][/rrst ][rcc ][P.S,Al]f KOSIIYT] 'lhe prcsent writ pctition is frlcd tl thc pctitioncr assailing theimpugncd order dated 31.O7.2023 passcd by the respondentNo.3/The Commrssioncr of Income-Tax (Exemptions) and thesubsequent consequential orders passcd thereon- 2. Hcard Sri A.V.A. Siva Kartikeva, leilrned counsel lor thepetitioner and Sri A. Ramakrishna Rt:ddr,, lcarrncd counscl for therespondcn t- Dcpartm(in t 3. Vide thc said impugned order, the respondent No.3 had rejecteda.i napplication for conrionaLion of de la! in filing F-<lrm I OB for thcasse ssment vear 2Ol7-18 under Scction I l9(2)(b) of the [ncome TaxAct, I961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) 4. The brief facts relevant lor adjudiczrtion of the [prcscnt ][u'rit]petition are that the pctitioner u'hich is zI [cstablishment having ][got]registered itself under [Sectir.rn ] [of thc ][Act, submitted ][its ][income]Lax rclurns orr 31.10 [2017. ][IIo\\(vcr, ][trs therc ]'uvcrc [ccrL:rin dcfects']In('same [u'as ][returncd ][arlcl ][rcvLst'ri inr:clmc ][tax returns ]"r'crc [iurnislred]crrr 02. I 1.2017 [. ][Whilt: ][submittirrg ][thc rclt'lrl'rs tril ][ttt<:ornc ][u'as declared] claiming oxernlltLor-r uncler Scction l2A of thc Act. Therealter, thcrespondt'r.rt No. 1 initiated procecdings undcr Section 147 ol thc Actand a notrcc undcr Scction I48 o[ the Act is [said ]to har.e bcctr issuedon 19.0(1.2019 and lurther notice under Section A2(l) ot the Act u'asalso issur:d r:zrlling r-rpon the petitioner to submit certain additionaldctails. Irinerlh an or<ier uas passed under Section l'17 read n'ithSe ction I 1 4 and Section I 448 of lhe Act on 24.O9.2021 [.] 5. Thc responclcnt No.l u,hilc passing the said order held that thepetitiorlcr has lailecl to prove the source of cash deposited by him intheir respective banks amounting to Rs.87,13,06O/- and the entireamount ruas bcing treated as unexplained money and u'as addcdundcr Section 69A rcad vvirh Section 11SBBE of the Act. 6. Il \\':ls lhc contcntion of the learned counscl for thc pctrtionerthat rronc of tht' noticcs isslred including the sho\4,causc notices \\'ereserved r-rpor.r rhc petirioner ancl neither was there an1' matcrialavailable .rt record to show that the notices *,ere duly served uponthe pe ritioncr. When the petitioner came to knou,about the impugnedordcr passerl at a bclated stage, he had preferred a statutory appealundcr s('ctro. 216A of the Act vicrc Form No.3s bcfore thc rcsponde.tNo.2/TI-rc Commissioncr o[ lncr>me Tax (Appeals). The responclentNo 2 had issucd ..ticc on the said appear and the mattcr is stillunder co.rsidt'ration before thc respondcnt No.2. While the matter \\,asscizcd bi' tltc rcspondent No.2. thc petitioner filed an application belore rherespondent No.3 on 14.O.2.2023[o condone the dclav inliling the audir rcporl in F-ormIOB lor thc Asscssrncnt year 2017_lg7. [t u,as the further conten tion o[ the learned counsel for thepcurloner that non filing of the audit report in Form IOB u,ould not beso fatalrequrring initiationof procecdings so far as denial ofcxemption under Section I Iof the Act. It is this application forcor-rdonation of delay in filing of the audit report which stands rejectedvide the impugned order dated 31.O7.2023 which rs under challengein the present writ petition. belore rherespondent No.3 on 14.O.2.2023[o condone the dclav inliling the audir rcporl in F-ormIOB lor thc Asscssrncnt year 2017_lg7. [t u,as the further conten tion o[ the learned counsel for thepcurloner that non filing of the audit report in Form IOB u,ould not beso fatalrequrring initiationof procecdings so far as denial ofcxemption under Section I Iof the Act. It is this application forcor-rdonation of delay in filing of the audit report which stands rejectedvide the impugned order dated 31.O7.2023 which rs under challengein the present writ petition. 8. The contention of the learned counscl lor the petrtioner all alongu'as that filing of the audit report in Form l0B is only a directory andnot mandatory in nature. Non-filing of the same cannoI be fatar to theexcmprion which the petitioner is otherwise entitled under Section l1ol the Act. it was further contended there was no as such a default onthe part of the petitioner except fcrr the fact that the audit report couldnot be brought on record. According to the learned counsel for thepetitioner, there is no clispute to the fact that within the prescribedperiod itserf the petitioner had submitted returns and even the auditreporr \^'as prepared in time i.e. on 2O.O9.2O17 Because of technicalreasons, rt could not be uploaded and filedwith the authoritiescotlcerned and the same was ultimatel], uploaded on 1O.04.2019. Thelact that it was uploaded on 10.04.20 19 gccs to sho$,. that uploadingof thc audit report \ras done about 2.5 years bcrore the assessment order[\\'as ][passccl ][and ][Lhe ][same ][also stood ][uploadecl ][u'el[ ][before ][the]passedon24 .og .2021. [In the ][grven]assessmcnL [order ][\\ as]of Sectioncircumstances [t'1k111!l ][tnLo ][consideration ][the ][provlstons]i 19(2)(b) [of the ][Act' ][the ][authoritY ][concerned ][ought ][to ][have ][taken ][a]liberal [approach ][ancl ][should ][have ][condoned ][the ][delay caused ][in ][filing]of the [audit ][rePort] g. . [According ][to the ][learned counsel ][ior the ][petitioner' ][the]impugned [ordcr ][p:tsscd ][bl ][thc ][respondcnt ][No ][3 ][is ][totally ][arbitrary']q,ithout propcr:rpplir:ation [oI mind ][ancl ][bcing ][passed ][in ][a mechanical]manner. [lt ][n'as ][spccifrcall1' ][contended ][that ][the aulhority ][concerned]has not [dealt ][u'ith ][it ][ln ][any ][manner ][or ][discussed ][upon any of ][the]groundsraiscdintheapplicationunderSectionllg(2)(b)oftheACt.For the [said ][reasot.t, ][thc pra]'cr ][o[ the ][pctitioner ][was ][for ][issuance ][of an]appropriate [Writ ][in ][the ][nature ][of Mandamus declaring the ][impugned]order [clated ][31 ][07'2023 ][rejecting ][the ][application ][under ][Section]1 19(2)(b) [o[ ][the ][Act to ][be ][arbitrary' ][bad ][in ][law ][and ][for an ][appropriale]direction [to ][holci ][lhat ][the consequential decisions taken also to ][be bad]in law. [tn ][support ][ol his ][contentions' learned counsel ][for ][the]relied [upon ][the decisions ][in ][the ][case ][of MADHU DADHA ][vs']petitioncr ASSISTANT [Td(l' ] OF CUSTOMS {IMPORTI, [M/S. ] AND COMPANY & ORS.2 so also the case of M/s. Myadam KishanRao Charitable Establishment vs. The Commissioner of IncomeTax (Exemption)3 of tt-ris Court on the questron of alternative remedy.1O. Per contra, Iearned counscl for the respondent-Departmentre fcrring Lo the assessme nt order dated 24.O9 .2021 for thcAssessmcnt Ycar 2Ol7-18 contended that the petitioner lYas issuedu'ith thc. noticcs at every stage of the proceedings. In addition, apartIrom issuzrnce and serving of notices through e-mail through thcIncomc'l'erx Busincss Application [(ITBA) ]portal, all these [notices ][were]also rssr-rcd and served upon the petitioner through [speed ][post. Thus,]thc contcntion o[ the [petitioner ]that they [are ][not ][being ][served]cffcctivelv is not worth accepting and is [far ][from ][truth ][deserving]rele( ti{)r'r ,rl the said contcntion. 11. It u'as the contention o[ the learned [counsel ][lor ][Lhe ][respondent-]Dcpartmcnt that the pctitioncr [n'as ][issucd ][and ][served ][with ][thc ][noticcs]both elcctronicatly and also [physically ][and ][if ][the ][petitioner ][chose not]io contest the case or to [respond ][to ][any ][of the ][notices so ][issued. ][the]petitioner cannot be [permitted ]to [agitate ][the ][same ][at ][this ][belated]stage and having done at [this ][inordinately ][belated ][stage ][without ][any]justil-rczttion and plausible explanation, the [respondent-Department] ' CIVIL APPEAL NO.3321 ol 2OO1 ot Supreme Court of lr'ldra'WP 24005 of 2023 dated 30.08.2023ot High Court [for ][the Sta(e ][of lelangana]'WP 24005 of 2023 dated 30.08.2023ot High Court [for ][the Sta(e ][of lelangana] cannot bc blamed [r;r having rr. jt:ctccl the application for condonation-oI delal'. 12. Learncd counst'l lirr rhc rcspondent-Dcpartmcnt rcferring to theimpugned ordr)r conrcrtrlcd thzrt the :ruthoritl. concerned has rightl1,.considercd thc application on irs ou'n mcrits and keeping in view thecirculars ol the [(]o'ernn)('lrt ]oI I,rlia so lar as delay and condonatronof delay is concerned arrd thc impugned order cannoL be found faultwith. In the atrsencc ,[ zrnr represcntation by the petitioner before theauthorit]' concerncd ancl etlso in the absence o[ anv response lrom thepetitioner side and arso rr ithour rhere being e nough materiarsavailable for thc authorirr c()ncerned, they could not have doneanything but u hat has becr-r clone rvhile dismissing the applicationundcr Section I19(2)(b) ol rirc Acr. According to the learned counsellor the respondcnt l)cpartntcnr, the pctitloner had ample opportunityif he wanted to upload or made ar.ailable the audit report ancl havingnot done so goes ro establish the lact that the petitioner hasdeliberately not shou.r.r ar-N. kecn interest on the proceedings sodrau,n. Thus, hc,"r'ould n.r bc c'rtitlccl for any sympathetic treatmentor a._vthrng as slrch. Firr thc :rhrrcserid rcason, the learned counsel forthe responde'n t- Depart mcnt pra'cd for rejection of thc writ pe[itionholding it ro bc dt.void ,,f mt'rirs. 13. Lcarncd counscl lrrr thc rcspondcn r_ Departmen t in support ofhis contentiorrs had rt:li.d lrpot-l th. dccisions in thc cascs o[ ASSISANT COMMISSIONER [(CT) ][LTU, ] [Versus ] SMITH KLINE CONSUMER [and yet ][another ][decision]of thc Division Bench [of ][this ][Court ][in M/s' ][Zoos ][and ][Parks]Authority of [Telangana ][vs' ][The ][Commissioner ][of ][Income ][Tax](Exemptionsls to bc adoPted [in an ][appropriate ][case] t4.Har,inghcardLheContentionsputrorthoneithersideandonperusal or records, lor [proper ][adjudicating ][thc ][dispute ][raised ][in ][the]presenI u,rit [petitiolr, ][it ][u'ould ][be ][relevant ][at ][this ][juncture ][to ][take ][no[e]of the contents [ol thc ][impugncd order itself ][which for ][ready ][relerence]is reproduced [hercin ][under:] " With refcrencc to [the ][assessee's ][application ][for]condonation [of ][delaf ][in filing ][Form ] [tor ][the ] [2017- ][I8']citcd undc. [rclercttcc ] [above, ][it ][is ][to ][state ][that ][the ][assessee]nor- nt..t l'u.- [bclatedly ][The ][assessee ].has [been]..qr..t.a lo [tlrnisl.r ccrtain ][information ][vide ][above ][cited]2. [justrlving ][its application ][ror condon-ation of ][delav];;i;.;;"" t-torr'.t".. th. ,.."t... has not submitted [sufl-rcient ][reason]*hi.h p.".'",,,"d [rhc ][assessec ][trom ][hling the ][same' ][within ][the]due date. As per Board's [circular' ][" ][The ][Commissioner ][of ]..lnc.ome-taxare authirized [lo ][adml and ][dispose ][off ][such ][app.lications ][for],inAiiation [of ][delay ][u/s.119(2)(b) ][of ][the ][Act v'rhere' ][lhe ][assessee]iit [-pir"nt"o ][by ]['reasonabie' cause ][from filing such ][application]wlhin the [stiqulated ][time] As per Board's [circular' ][" ][The ][Commissioner ][of ]..lnc.ome-taxare authirized [lo ][adml and ][dispose ][off ][such ][app.lications ][for],inAiiation [of ][delay ][u/s.119(2)(b) ][of ][the ][Act v'rhere' ][lhe ][assessee]iit [-pir"nt"o ][by ]['reasonabie' cause ][from filing such ][application]wlhin the [stiqulated ][time] ln view o[ [above ][reasons, ][it is ][conc]uded- ][that ][the]applicatior.r [filed ][b1' ][the ][irssessee ][for condonation of ][delay ][u/s]in [titing ][horm ][loB ][for ][the ][assessment ][vear ][2ol7-18];i6irIb) is hcrcbl [rejected] ' (:o2ol l9 suP,e.e court [cd\c) ][b8l]'wp [879a ][of ][2023 ][dated 04 04 ][2023]'wp [879a ][of ][2023 ][dated 04 04 ][2023] of High [Cou(t ][for the ][State ][of ][TelanBana] --- ll ive look into the contents of thc zrbor.c szrid impugned order, what isapparentll-reflected is that rltc impugrrcd ordcr is cryptic. Crvptic tothe cxtent that thc rtrdcr is toIi.tlh unrc:rsonccl ancl notr-speakingorder. 15. Further to deal r,r,it h issr-tr'. it r.oulcl nou, be necessarv to takenote of the statuton' pro'isi.ns clc:rli.g * ith thc condonation of delaywhich stands decided lt_r. thc rcsponrlc.t-Dcpartmcnt and u,hich isunder challcngc in thc prcscnr \\.nL pctirion. Scctron 1lg(2)(b) of theAct empo,r'e.s the Commissi,nc.r to elltcrtain an application forcondonation .[ delay whicr'r rcr r r.trd-r rr.rcrence is being reproducedherein under: "Section 119(2[bl Thc f]oarcl rn:l.. i[ considers it desirableor expcdicnt so to clo lrrr;noi<1ing gcnuutc hardship. In anyor expcdicnt so to clo lrrr;noi<1ing gcnuutc hardship. In anycasc or class of cases .llt qcrrcral or- spccial order, authoriseany income-ta-'i aurhoritr'. to admit an application or clalmfor aly excmption. decluction. refund or any other reliefunder this Act after the c\pin,of the period specified underthis Act for making strch altplication or claim and deal withfor aly excmption. decluction. refund or any other reliefunder this Act after the c\pin,of the period specified underthis Act for making strch altplication or claim and deal withthe same on merits in accordancc urth la,a,.,' A plain readir-rg of the afore said pro'isior.r oI lau. r,r,ourd clearry indicatethat the intention of the framcrs of rhe la*'\4'as to provide a libera]that the intention of the framcrs of rhe la*'\4'as to provide a libera]approach rt,herc the rc is a dclar ocr-ur.rt.cl. What rs necessary to beconsidered at rhis juncturc :rlscr is ritc [act that the petitioner is aconsidered at rhis juncturc :rlscr is ritc [act that the petitioner is aregistered establishme,t under Sccti.r.r lf A or the Act. section 12A ofthe Act provid,.s li]-x ex(.mpti{)n to r.1111;j1.,1r1.. trust lhat is registeredu'ith thc lncome Ta_r Dcpartmcn t. So [:rr as registration is concerned,the Act provid,.s li]-x ex(.mpti{)n to r.1111;j1.,1r1.. trust lhat is registeredu'ith thc lncome Ta_r Dcpartmcn t. So [:rr as registration is concerned, there no quarrel oo the s;1ry1g. The dispute in in respect of the assessment order for the Assessment the present case is onlyyear 20lZ_lg. there no quarrel oo the s;1ry1g. The dispute in in respect of the assessment order for the Assessment the present case is onlyyear 20lZ_lg. 16. The admittcd facrLl2l rn:l1p'x lrom thc facts of the case is thatthe return of income rr as fllccl b,r. rhe petitioner lbr the AssessmentYear 2017-18 on 02_ I l.20t7.I3etore tiling ot the said return irself, theaccounts of the pctition(,r \\.crc got audited and the audit report wasprepareQ well in rime on 2O.Og.2Ol7.The due dare for filing of thereturn was on or before 3l_10.2017 and the petitioner herein drd filehis return on 31.1O.2OllHor"r.ever, on account of certain defectsdetectcd, the sameu'as returned and revised return was filed on02. 1 1 .2017Thus, the reIurn standssubmitred within the time.Howevgl, there was a rcquirement lor uploading of the audit reportThe audit report mcanr\ hilc lr.:rs uploaded though at a belated stageon 21.02.2019,noncthclcss thc uploading of the audit report \.\.,asmuch before(be fore25.r'ears) the assessment order dated24.O9.2021 was passed. Itis in this factual backdrop that theapplication for condonarion of delay filed by the petitioner ought tohave been de cidcd b_r,. Ihe au thoritv concerned 17. Now if u,e look inro the s[:lLuton. provisions, what is reflected isthat the provisions under Secrion t 19(2)(b) has been enacted with aspecific purpose empou,ering thc allthorities concerned to condonethe delay on the pzrrt of thc assessee in furnishing or in submitting ofthe returns or an approprlare irpplication ,r.ithin a reasonable period for anl' [sPecific]aid [provision ][of ][lau' ][does ][not ][provide]of [time. The ][s]onation [of ][delaY]srithin [rvhich ][the ][appiicarion ][for ][cond]period [o[ ][time]has:rlso [been enacted ][[o ][ensure]needs [to ][be ][hled][ The said ][Provlston]assessec [mzrr facc ][czrn ][be ][avoidcd ][by]that [genuine ][hardshiP ][t'hich ][an]an[approPriate]has [occurred ][and]condoning [the ][delaY ][if ][anY ][that]application [seeking for condonation ][of ][dclal][ is ][tiled] in the [case ][ol ][Satoodaga]Court [[of ]][[Gujarat]] Court [[of ]][[Gujarat]]18. [The ][High]1). Income [Tax ][OJJicer' ][(Exemption)6 deaiing ][with]Clnd;d:to;bte [Trust] Clnd;d:to;bte r the [provisions ][ol ][laq ][1l1 ][paragraph ][Nos ][3 ][1 ][and ][32]similar [issue unde]held [as ][under:] .31.Havingci*":1,-.*'-"."':iili'ili.:1.'^",il:'},",i;1".'.T'laspects [of ][the matter' ][*." ]lj."rn;,,,n lre cqrritirus. [balancing]it,. .r..= [of ][thc ][Pre-sen1,]t11,n,ir"r,,,o ]lrberall speaking. [the]ard 1 [udiciou s. ][T:tl"lL''-i ]ii,'-i, i,""i.-, i",,|,,,,' q r he [cxemption]rcsptndent [no ][2 ][mrghl. ][o".' ], - -..r-.. !;,\o *rr, h cond.nation'.i,.;rdbt(.-rrusr unic. [s..tion ][l2 ]past"l [lh" ]l:,1. ? n;i,i,: ipotll?i"J;.tll [i.l,-Xiiiii' ][;'"'ri"'' ][r"' ][on ][d ][It ][io ][n ][ror ][availins]iJ Jn ?*. oi,"n'n [o' ][rd'l!"lli, ]" :l il i| ll;'i[,".'I;;:';::::,j.f..':'Xl'jij:?:,' [fi ]['#' ][;:i'" ][.'' ]"'' u" [a ]o'i" [su ][ch ][derav]ir'l- tt [.,,-,tt-totities ][concerned] 32. we [mav ][.r"9 ]::l:','3-'li.l":l'';.,1' 1l$'.i"rti Gujarat [oil ][and ]1:"",1 '::o rhar rhe provision reg-archng"+fTr?ffi#;;' #".Tli'it'"i]"ilin t [in'' ]t'.'ir.;,:: " [i*'.''t.'"' ][t ][to ][be ][tre'a ][ted ][as]"'' [p.... ][a'.,. ]["t- ][p')l': ]^ :..i :,0; i:'ii'rl*""T:,il:wilh [the]arong lXL=13"'fl"0",Ii'iffi.X;','; [u'Ji' ]'"po,.' bel?re [the]return [of ][incomc ][but ftoa"t"a thc ][same ]' completion [of ][the ][asscssm!"i ][ff-'it ][Collrt ][took ][the ][view ][that]the bencfit oI exemptror.l [should ][not ][be ][denicd merely ][on]accour-rt or delay in furnishing thc same and it is permissible u [ZOltl iZq taxrnann com 75 (GujaraL) for the assessee to produce the auclit rcport at a later stagceither before the lncome-tas Offir:cr or before the appellateauthoritv bv assigning sufllcicnt <:ause.' 19, The High Court ol (iularar lurthcr in the case ofCOMIITISSIOJVER OF INCOME-TAX u. GUJARAT OIL AND ALLIEDIIVD US ?RIES [7 ]held as undcr: u [ZOltl iZq taxrnann com 75 (GujaraL) for the assessee to produce the auclit rcport at a later stagceither before the lncome-tas Offir:cr or before the appellateauthoritv bv assigning sufllcicnt <:ause.' 19, The High Court ol (iularar lurthcr in the case ofCOMIITISSIOJVER OF INCOME-TAX u. GUJARAT OIL AND ALLIEDIIVD US ?RIES [7 ]held as undcr: "ln our view, rhe aforesaid reasonrng of the Allahabad HighCourt and the Patna High Court u'ould squarely apply to thefacts of the present casc. ['l'hc ]provision about furnishing ofthe auditors'report along \.ith thc return has to be treated asa procedural provision. clircctorv in nature, and itssubstantial compliance should sulflce, meaning thereby thatsuch report shouid bc madt' ar ailuble by the assessee to theAssessing Officer latcst u hen thc question of framing ofassessment is t:rken r-rp lrl thc Incomc tax O{Iicer and whenhe applies his mind to thc claim ol-thc asscssee and if by thattime, the asscssee hits ptrt his house in order and [has]furnished the report of thc aurlitor [[or- ]supporting the [return,]he can be said to havc satisllt'cl the rcquirement [of ][sectton]80.1(6A) of the Act. ['] 20, A similar view is availablc [lrom ][the ][High Court of ][Punjab ][and] Haryana in the case o[ [v']SHAHZEDANANDCHARITYTRUST8,rvhcreagaintheDivisionBench of High [Court ][ol ][Punjab ][ancl IJan ]'rna [dealing ][with similar ][facts]and circumstances [of ][the ][casc ][rclcrring to ][the ][circular of the ][[ncome]Tax Department [itsetf held ][as ][urldcr:] "The provisions [of ][scctron ][8O'i(6A) a,nd ][section ][l2A ][of]the Act [are ][pan ][maictint ][The ][rutio ][ol ][th-c ][law ][laid ][down]in CIT [v. ][Jaidcep ][Industrics ] [19891 ][l8OITR ][8I ][(P ][&amp;]Itl *orta [f''u" ][uitn ]-it-,tt [applrcabie ]'i""ttal Board [to ][th: ]of [fl:t= ]Direct [of ][[he presenl]Taxes notcase as [*'ett ][f'al ] 20, A similar view is availablc [lrom ][the ][High Court of ][Punjab ][and] Haryana in the case o[ [v']SHAHZEDANANDCHARITYTRUST8,rvhcreagaintheDivisionBench of High [Court ][ol ][Punjab ][ancl IJan ]'rna [dealing ][with similar ][facts]and circumstances [of ][the ][casc ][rclcrring to ][the ][circular of the ][[ncome]Tax Department [itsetf held ][as ][urldcr:] "The provisions [of ][scctron ][8O'i(6A) a,nd ][section ][l2A ][of]the Act [are ][pan ][maictint ][The ][rutio ][ol ][th-c ][law ][laid ][down]in CIT [v. ][Jaidcep ][Industrics ] [19891 ][l8OITR ][8I ][(P ][&amp;]Itl *orta [f''u" ][uitn ]-it-,tt [applrcabie ]'i""ttal Board [to ][th: ]of [fl:t= ]Direct [of ][[he presenl]Taxes notcase as [*'ett ][f'al ] issuecl thc circulzrr darcd I.'cbruarl 9, 197g, rcpr oduc:cclin the earlier part of thc judgmcni. As pcr. rhc circulerr itis nor mandaron. undcr sccrior-r l2A(bi rc lilc rhc ar-rditreport along r,l rth the rcturn of incornc. Norrnall_r ain the earlier part of thc judgmcni. As pcr. rhc circulerr itis nor mandaron. undcr sccrior-r l2A(bi rc lilc rhc ar-rditreport along r,l rth the rcturn of incornc. Norrnall_r acharitable or religious trust or insritution ls expcctcd , tofilc thc auditor's report etlong u.ith thc rcturu but infilc thc auditor's report etlong u.ith thc rcturu but incascs whcre for reasons be-vond the con(rol of theasscssee some delay has occurred in filing tht: saidreport, the Incomc tax Officer, lor reas<ins to berecorrled, has been authorized to condonc thc delav infurnishrng bclated stage. the auditor,s report and It has been clariticcl acccpt thai thc t hc c.xcmptron.r,._l ,, ,report, the Incomc tax Officer, lor reas<ins to berecorrled, has been authorized to condonc thc delav infurnishrng bclated stage. the auditor,s report and It has been clariticcl acccpt thai thc t hc c.xcmptron.r,._l ,, ,available to the trust undcr section I I mar. nol bcdenied mercly on account of dcla-r. in l.r_rntiihing theauditor's report. The r|ord [.'shall.. ]r.rt.currirrg tn s(.clion"must" 12A cannot, making under the it mandatory circumstanccs, for rhc trust bc- to furnrsl.r reacl as theaauditor's ccrlain unavoidablc report along u.ith cir.cumstar)(.(:s ihe filing oi rh,l,,**,,=.,...,athc rerr-rrn. Il forreturn unable then to furnish the samc thr: can :ruditor,s be furnished .epo.L atrrrf"r\.rth ,.1'u-lut.r dat.theauditor's report. The r|ord [.'shall.. ]r.rt.currirrg tn s(.clion"must" 12A cannot, making under the it mandatory circumstanccs, for rhc trust bc- to furnrsl.r reacl as theaauditor's ccrlain unavoidablc report along u.ith cir.cumstar)(.(:s ihe filing oi rh,l,,**,,=.,...,athc rerr-rrn. Il forreturn unable then to furnish the samc thr: can :ruditor,s be furnished .epo.L atrrrf"r\.rth ,.1'u-lut.r dat.ther.r,ith the permission ot.the Assess,"*'Ofi,.* ,,,nn *oupermit the assessee to do so uft"..;a;.;i;i'^,"'..""..,for so doing.,,,nn *oupermit the assessee to do so uft"..;a;.;i;i'^,"'..""..,for so doing. furnished per the Cor-rnsel appearing circular. rhe for the Revenue 11u6l1sqp,5 .";;;, thcn Jnili"onru argucd that u.asup to the stage.of framing o[ ass(__ssimcnt as:[,,::;-1#,'u:,':";:'r"'r''ru']'n'' ".,1*1,,*,n"tr.,e r.,.omJit];6;,,i"'."ttt [date ][has ][onl.r' ][bceri ][givcn ]roappellarc srallc. wc I-i,-r..,':tl [nn' ][lhcrr'aftcr' ][i ][t ]] ri ir.,1*,",c"nr.,i';"j:; ;;"J:".T";':l:,i]1. crrc,ul.ar dated Februar r [qzt, ][" ]pr-o_vrsrons regarding furnishing,,f l, h"; ,.,,IJ"d ".ill;.,7rheatong uirh tht. rcturn r. t.,^ if-r,j.,,raiurI_,''",,t,.s rcporrdir.c1.ry i" ;ri;;; "R::' .b: [proccdural ]^"i^^,..'^, artri. lhcrc forc,a,u<litort ;;o;;'ii'r,0"\ sho'*ing su[i.jcnt t irusc. rhcappellate either befoic r"rr-,o.i,|. in" l'*,i,1^o.t:du:'"i " ["tt()mc- ][tax ][officer ][at ]'u)' [or ]belorc Iater stagcthe 21.Coming to thc decisions relied upol [-r, 1fi6 lcarncd counsel foru cre rt:ndt,red under thcrespondcn t_Dcpartmcnt, t lr osc dccisions 21.Coming to thc decisions relied upol [-r, 1fi6 lcarncd counsel foru cre rt:ndt,red under thcrespondcn t_Dcpartmcnt, t lr osc dccisions entrrely different contextual backgrounci was not a situation "!r and 'irrLr thr_rlus ln both the cases itwh".o rere the ,'1"- income ,- tax return Assessing audit repo.t officer arso stood rploaded more than 2 5 vears q'as much filed before and thethehad rassed the assessment order' said judgments cannot Therefore, theapplied in a straight iacket manner facts of the present to the"u"".'" 22. For the aforesaid aforesaidreaSOnS, \\reare ir-rclined petl tion setting aside thermpugnedorder dated 31.07.2023. to allou, the writresult, theconsequential order As apassedsubscquopt to the rejection ofthe application underSection I lg(2)(b) of rhe Act would also automatically getquashedand the application oI the petitioner forcondonation of delay stands allor.l,edWhcrefore the respondent No.3would be required to pass anappropria tc consequential order inaccordance with law. 23.Accordingly, the writ petition stands allow,ecl. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pend ing it any, shalr stand crosed ttrRUEcopy, ^..,.**ffj:T To t::'I"*1#"r3"r#lii+:uiEh;ffi ljli#ffi #ft :l"#i,tiffi i;*;*;"[fr:#}i#H#ntfr [i=ltdl[,#ffi ][:"T;;":Jffi ][h.]pff roeucr,ff [:nf fl1".," 3j[3.X*:,il,?#t ljli#ffi #ft :l"#i,tiffi i;*;*;"[fr:#}i#H#ntfr [i=ltdl[,#ffi ][:"T;;":Jffi ][h.]pff roeucr,ff [:nf fl1".," 3j[3.X*:,il,?#t 1 2 3 4oo SAGJP i\k HIGH DATED:2411112023 ORDER WP.No.31360 [of ][2023] ALLOWING [W.P] WITHOU-I'COSTS. @.v 5IATE [q]'aeviliqaaor$[[Lt,][ $E]tD[r:q]f!.''