Bombay High Court
Warkari Shikshan Sanstha Alandi ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 21 January, 2025
Author: M.S.Sonak
Bench: M.S.Sonak
7.wp.11410-2024(F).docx
2025:BHC-AS:3416-DB
Pradnya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11410 OF 2024
Warkari Shikshan Sanstha, ]
Alandi Devachi, Tal.-Khed, ]
Dist. - Pune, Pune - 412105. ] ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Commissioner of Income Tax, ]
(Exemptions), Pune, ]
Income Tax Office, PMT Building, ]
Swargate, Pune - 37. ]
2. Union of India, ]
Through the Secretary ]
Ministry of Finance, North Block, ]
New Delhi - 110 001. ] ...Respondents
__________________________________________________________
A PPEARANCES -
Adv Kunal Damle, a/w Adv Iraa Dube Patil, Adv Ashish
Gabhale, i/b. Jay & Co., for the Petitioner.
Adv A. K. Saxena, for the Respondent-Revenue.
__________________________________________________________
CORAM : M.S.Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED : 21 January 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per MS Sonak J):-
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7.wp.11410-2024(F).docx
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the
request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties.
3. This Petition concerns Assessment Years 2019-2020,
2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. For these years, the
Petitioners were delayed in filing Form 10B of the Income Tax
Act ("IT Act). A joint application was filed seeking
condonation of delay. However, this application has been
denied by the impugned order dated 12 October 2023. Hence,
this Petition.
4. At the outset, Mr Kunal Damle, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, states that this Petition, in so far as it relates to
Assessment Year 2020-2021, is not being pressed. He explains
that the impugned order does not decide the issue of
condonation for this Assessment Year since the delay was
more than 365 days, and the matter has been referred to the
Central Board of Direct Taxes ("CBDT"), where it is pending
consideration. Thus, this Petition is now restricted to
Assessment Year 2019-2020, where, according to Mr Damle,
there was no delay, and Assessment Year 2021-2022 and
2022-2023, where the delay was 2 and 16 days, respectively.
5. From the record, however, we find a delay in filing the
Form 10B for Assessment Year 2019-2020. This form was
required to be filed along with the original return of income
dated 27 August 2019. However, the same was filed on 17
July 2020, along with the revised return under Section 139(5)
of the IT Act. Mr Damle relies on the extension granted for
filing revised returns up to 30 September 2020 due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. However, since the Form 10B had to be
7.wp.11410-2024(F).docx
filed along with the original return, this contention cannot be
accepted.
6. As noted earlier, a joint application was filed on 23
March 2023 seeking condonation of delay in respect of the
above Assessment Years. The application refers to the Covid-
19 Pandemic from March 2019 and its effects on the
functioning of the educational trust. There is a reference to
shortage of funds, discontinuation of staff and the difficulties
in the accounting and audit works. There is a reference to the
Chartered Account being from Hadapsar and the difficulties
involved in the follow-up. There is a reference to shortage of
skilled staff and the non-availability of any vehicle.
7. We believe the above reasons warranted consideration
since they constituted sufficient cause. The delay in
Assessment Year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 was only 2 and
16 days, respectively. So far as Assessment Year 2019-2020 is
concerned, the Petitioner was under the bonafide delay, and
they would benefit from the extended timeline for filing a
revised return. The return was filed within the extended
period. However, since Form 10B had to be filed with the
original return, there is a delay. For this delay, the Petitioner
has shown sufficient cause.
8. The delay is not malafide, and the Petitioner has not
derived any undue advantage from such a delay. Learned
counsel for the Respondent submits that the Petitioner is
habitually late in such matters. There is no material to sustain
this contention. In any event, even if we accept this
contention, we must focus on the cause shown for the
relevant Assessment Years. As noted, there is sufficient cause
7.wp.11410-2024(F).docx
for all the three Assessment Years, which we must now
consider in this Petition.
9. The Petitioner is not some business venture but an
educational institution. Even this aspect is relevant. The
impact of Covid-19 Pandemic on the functioning of the
Petitioner is required to be taken into consideration.
10. For all the above reasons, we set aside the impugned
orders dated 12 October 2023 and condone the delay in filing
Form 10B for the Assessment Year 2019-2020, 2021-2022 and
2022-2023. Further, we grant the Petitioner liberty to pursue
the issue of condonation for the Assessment Year 2020-2021
before the CBDT.
11. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms without
any cost order.
12. All concerned should act on an authenticated copy of
this order.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M. S. Sonak, J)
Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale
Date: 24/01/2025 14:16:21
