Kerala High Court
St. Kuriakose Public School Society vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 4 April, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
WP(C) NO. 9233 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:29040
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 9233 OF 2025
PETITIONER(S):
ST. KURIAKOSE PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY
PAZHUTHURUTHY THIRUVAMPADY, KOTTAYAM PAN - AAXAS9585Q
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AJEESH JOSE,
PIN - 686 612.
BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOS (SR.)
ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS
V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
ISAAC THOMAS
P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM
JOHN VITHAYATHIL
NABEEL AHAMED S.
RESPONDENT(S):
1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION),
AYAKAR BHAVAN, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD,
KOCHI, PIN - 682 018.
2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)
INCOME TAX OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 001.
3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
NORTH BLOCK, SECRETARIAT BUILDING,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, RAVI AGARWAL
SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SR.SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 9233 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:29040
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
W.P.(C) No.9233 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2025
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges an order issued under Section 119(2) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 [for short, 'the Act'], dismissing an application for
condonation of delay in filing audit report in Form 10B for the assessment
year 2021-2022.
2. Petitioner is a charitable trust registered under Section 12A of Act and is
liable to file their returns as well as audit reports for each assessment
year. In the assessment year 2021-2022, the audit reports were filed
with a delay of 26 days. However, the return, as required by law, was
filed within time. Since there was a delay in filing the audit report, an
application was filed before the Commissioner under Section 119(2)(b) of
the Act for condonation. However, by order dated 08.04.2024, the
application was dismissed.
3. According to the petitioner, the delay in filing the audit report was
inadvertent and it was during the Covid-19 Pandemic time, when the
Supreme Court had even condoned delay in most of the matters. It is
also pointed out the Commissioner has taken a very rigid stance, instead
of adopting a liberal approach.
WP(C) NO. 9233 OF 2025
2025:KER:29040
4. I have heard Sri.Joseph Markos, the learned Senior counsel instruction by
Sri.Alexander Joseph Markos, the learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
5. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that no specific reasons have
been given by the Commissioner and instead, he merely came to the
conclusion that the petitioner had failed to provide any reasons or
documentary evidence to prove that the delay was caused due to
circumstances beyond petitioner's control. The approach of the
Commissioner has been highly hyper-technical and contrary to the well
established principles on condonation of delay.
6. The requirement of audit report to be filed one month before filing the
returns have been brought in by an amendment only recently. Till then,
the audit reports could be filed along with the returns. In the instant
case, the delay in filing the audit report occurred at a time when
Covid-19 Pandemic had struck the country.
7. The supreme Court had, in Re Cognizance for Extension of
Limitation (2021 (5) KLT 689) suo motu, extended the time for filing
various applications in judicial and quasi judicial proceedings. Though
the respondents have objects to the applicability of the said judgment, to
the filing of an audit report, I am of the view that principles embodied in
the said judgment of the Supreme Court could be adopted, especially
since the delay in filing audit report is only 26 days. In this context, it is
also pertinent to mention that the CBDT had extended the time to file
returns till 15.03.2022, and therefore, petitioner should have filed the
WP(C) NO. 9233 OF 2025
2025:KER:29040
audit report 30 days before the returns. Since the change in dates has
caused confusion to many persons and the delay is very minimal, I am of
the view that a rigid stance ought not to have been adopted. The order
declining to condone the delay is liable to be interfered with.
8. Accordingly, Ext.P8 order is set aside and the delay in filing the audit
report for the assessment year 2021-2022 is hereby condoned.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AMV/04/04/2025
WP(C) NO. 9233 OF 2025
2025:KER:29040
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9233/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 06.08.2024 IN
W.P.(C) NO. 10438/2024. AND CONNECTED CASES
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.1/2022 DATED
11.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF
DIRECT TAXES (CBDT)
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 13.03.2022
AND AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10B
EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 15.03.2022
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.01.2022 OF THE
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 2/2020 DATED
03.01.2020 ISSUED BY CBDT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 16/2022 DATED
19.07.2022 ISSUED BY CBDT
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF
DELAY DATED 01.08.2022 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-
25/1063905768(1) DATED 04.04.2024 OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
