Bombay High Court
Karnataka Sangha-Through Its ... vs Cit (Exemptions)-Mumbai on 21 January, 2025
Author: M. S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
Digitally signed (2) WPL-9375.24.DOCX
2025:BHC-OS:929-DB
by LAXMIKANT
LAXMIKANT GOPAL
GOPAL CHANDAN
CHANDAN Date:
2025.01.22
17:07:22 +0530
lgc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 9375 OF 2024
Karnataka Sangha
Through its President
Shri Bharatkumar D Kunder : Petitioner
Versus
CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai and ors. : Respondents
______________________________________________________
Mr Nishit Gandhi a/w Ms Aadnya C Bhandari, for the
Petitioner.
Mr Dinesh R Gulabani a/w Mr. Vibhor D Gulabani, for the
Respondents.
______________________________________________________
CORAM M.S. Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED: 21 January 2025
ORAL JUDGEMENT :- (Per M. S. Sonak, J)
1. Heard Ms. Aadnya Bhandari and Mr. Nishit Gandhi for
the Petitioner and Mr. Gulabani for the Respondents.
2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the
request of and with the consent of learned counsel for the
parties.
3. This Petition concerns the Assessment Year 2022-23 and
challenges the CIT (Exemptions) order dated 21 November
2023, which refused to condone a 15-day delay in filing Form-
(2) WPL-9375.24.DOCX
10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("IT Act") on the ground that
no sufficient cause was shown.
4. The Petitioner had submitted that reconstruction and
redevelopment of the trust premises had been going on for the
last 3 to 4 years. As a result, the trust office was not fully
functional. Due to this, there is a marginal delay of 15 days in
filing the prescribed Form-10B. The learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that this was more than sufficient cause.
5. Mr. Gulabani, the learned counsel for the Respondents,
defended the impugned order based on the reasoning
reflected therein. He pointed out that the cited reasons could
not constitute sufficient cause since the Petitioner trust was
old and presumed to know the rules and regulations. He
pointed out that this reconstruction and redevelopment did
not prevent the Petitioner trust from undertaking its routine
activities. Therefore, this reason could not now be cited as a
cause for not filing Form-10B within the prescribed limitation
period. He referred to the decisions discussed in the impugned
order regarding the importance of adherence to the timelines
under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. He also relied on
Ranka & others Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.1 to submit that every
day's delay needs to be explained with cogent evidence.
6. We have considered the rival contentions, and in our
judgment, the 15-day delay in filing Form-10B deserves to be
condoned in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7. There is no serious denying that the reconstruction and
redevelopment of the trust premises have been going on since
AIR 1962 SC 361
(2) WPL-9375.24.DOCX
2018. Necessary approvals are on record. There is a reference
to the intervening Covid pandemic. If, for all these reasons,
there was some disruption in the normal functioning of the
trust office, entailing a marginal delay of 15 days in filing
Form-10B, a case of sufficient cause was made out.
8. The impugned order notes that if the condonation had
pertained to F.Y.2018-19, then the reason now cited by the
trust could have been accepted. However, since the delay
pertains to A.Y. 2022-23, this cause cannot be accepted. Since
there is no dispute that the reconstruction and redevelopment
work commenced in 2018 and were ongoing, such a
distinction was improper. The trust has also submitted
sufficient evidence regarding ongoing construction activities
in forms, approvals, commencement certificates, etc. The
reason is neither frivolous nor can it be said to be some excuse
to derive some undue benefits. Even assuming that each day's
delay must be explained, considering the delay is only 15 days
and the cause shown is eminently acceptable, the impugned
order warrants interference.
9. In most matters involving condonation of delay, some
lapse on the part of the party seeking indulgence is quite
normal. However, that by itself, cannot be a ground for
refusing to exercise discretion. Suppose the cause shown is
not malafide and the party has not gained any undue and
undeserved advantage due to its own delay. In that case, the
authorities are expected to consider the cause shown. In a
matter where the delay is not inordinate, the liberal approach
could be adopted.
(2) WPL-9375.24.DOCX
10. Even assuming that in tax matters, the liberal approach
should not be readily adopted given the importance of the
timelines, still, even on a conservative basis, this is a matter
where sufficient cause has been shown to explain the
marginal delay.
11. For all the above reasons, we set aside the impugned
order and condone the delay of 15 days in filing Form-10B of
the IT Act.
12. Now that we have condoned the delay, it will be open to
the Petitioner to take steps regarding the impugned
intimation. This liberty is granted explicitly to the Petitioner.
13. The rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
14. All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this
order.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
