Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manav Seva Samiti vs Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income ... on 14 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:36468-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4212/2025
Manav Seva Samiti, Dharamsala Parisar Hospital Road, Chetak
Circle, Udaipur-313001
----Petitioner
Versus
Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), New
Delhi, 25Th Floor, E-2 Block, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Civic
Centre, J.l.n. Road, New Delhi-110002
----Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. through VC
Mr. K.P. Raj Deora, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. K.K. Bissa
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Order
REPORTABLE
14/08/2025
(Per: Chief Justice)
1. Petitioner impugns an order dated 17 th August 2023 passed
under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The matter
pertains to Assessment Year 2018-2019.
2. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Shri K.K. Bissa appears for
respondent.
3. Petitioner is a public charitable trust registered under
Rajasthan Public Charitable Trusts Act, 1959. Petitioner-trust was
being maintained by one Anandi Lal Mehta, who was the then
President of Trust. The said Anandi Lal Mehta suffered a severe
brain stroke and was consequently hospitalized for an extended
period of time. Due to his medical condition, accounts of petitioner
for Assessment Year 2018-2019 got audited on 23 rd February 2019
[2025:RJ-JD:36468-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-4212/2025]
after a delay of 115 days and the auditor of petitioner uploaded
Form 10B on income tax e-portal only on 20 th September 2020
with a delay of 700 days after the due date. The said Anandi Lal
Mehta unfortunately also died later on 27th November 2022. In his
absence, the day to day affairs of petitioner had also come to a
grinding halt resulting in inordinate delay. Petitioner, therefore,
filed application under Section 119 of the Act, which came to be
rejected by impugned order dated 17th August 2023.
4. Counsel for petitioner Shri Siddharth Ranka submitted that
petitioner is a bona fide charitable trust running charitable
activities, distributing food to poor and also free ambulance
facilities. He submitted that all these activities are easily verifiable
from various income and expenditure accounts of petitioner.
5. It was submitted by Shri Ranka that respondent, in a very
casual manner, has rejected application for condonation of delay
by stating that, in absence of trust's President, a Vice-President
shall be responsible for all duties of President and therefore, the
fact that President not being well is a bona fide reason for seeking
condonation.
6. We agree with Shri Ranka that there is no allegation of lack
of bona fide in filing Form 10B and uploading the same belatedly.
He submitted that, therefore, delay should have been condoned
and present petition be allowed.
7. Counsel for respondent Shri K.K. Bissa reiterated what was
stated in impugned order.
8. The fact that there was any mala fide intention in filing Form
10B belatedly is not alleged in impugned order. The fact that
petitioner is a charitable trust is also not denied. Looking at the
[2025:RJ-JD:36468-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-4212/2025]
charitable activities itself, in our view, delay condonation
application should have been allowed. Courts have repeatedly held
that such approach in the cases of present type should be
equitious, balancing and judicious. Even though technically and
strictly and liberally speaking, respondent might be justified in
rejecting application but the assessee, a public charitable trust,
with so many years of charitable activities, which otherwise
satisfies the condition for availing such exemption should not be
denied the same merely due on the bar of limitation especially
when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to
condone such delay on the authorities concerned.
9. We find support for this view of ours in the judgment of
Bombay High Court in Al Jamia Mohammediyah Education
Society vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)
Mumbai, Union of India1 which was authored by one of us (the
Chief Justice) where paragraph 6 reads as under:
"6. Admittedly, Petitioner is a charitable trust. Admittedly,
Petitioner has been filing its returns and Form 10B for AY 2015-
16, for AY 2017-18 to AY 2021-22 within the due dates. On this
ground alone, in our view, delay condonation application should
have been allowed because the failure to file returns for AY
2016-17 could be only due to human error. Even in the
impugned order, there is no allegation of malafide. As held by
the Gujarat High Court in Sarvodaya Charitable Trust v. Income
Tax Officer (Exemption) MANU/GJ/1687/2020: [2021] 125
taxmann.com 75 (Gujarat), the approach in the cases of the
present type should be equitious, balancing and judicious.
Technically, strictly and liberally speaking, Respondent No.1
might be justified in denying the exemption by rejecting such
condonation application, but an assessee, a public charitable
trust with almost over thirty years, which otherwise satisfies the
condition for availing such exemption, should not be denied the
same merely on the bar of limitation especially when the
legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone
such delay on the authorities concerned. Paragraphs 30 and 31
of Sarvodaya Charitable Trust (Supra) reads as under:
1 2024 (4) TMI 939; [2025] 482 ITR 41 (Bom)
[2025:RJ-JD:36468-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-4212/2025]
"30. We may also refer to and rely upon a decision of the Delhi
High Court in the case of G.V. Infosutions (P) Ltd. v. Dy: CIT
[2019] 102 taxmann.com 397/261 Taxman 482. We may quote
the relevant observations thus:
"8. The rejection of the petitioner's application under
section 119(2)(b) is only on the ground that according to the
Chief Commissioner's opinion the plea of omission by the auditor
was not substantiated. This court has difficulty to understand
what more plea or proof any assessee could have brought on
record, to substantiate the inadvertence of its advisor. The net
result of the impugned order is in effect that the petitioner's
claim of inadvertent mistake is sought to be characterised as not
bona fide. The court is of the opinion that an assessee has to
take leave of its senses if it deliberately wishes to forego a
substantial amount as the assessee is ascribed to have in the
circumstances of this case.
"Bona fide" is to be understood in the context of the
circumstance of any case. Beyond a plea of the sort the
petitioner raises (concededly belatedly), there can not
necessarily be independent proof or material to establish that
the auditor in fact acted without diligence. The petitioner did not
urge any other grounds such as illness of someone etc., which
could reasonably have been substantiated by independent
material. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner, in our
opinion, was able to show bona fide reasons why the refund
claim could not be made in time.
9. The statute or period of limitation prescribed in provisions of
law meant to attach finality, and in that sense are statutes of
repose; however, wherever the legislature intends relief against
hardship in cases where such statutes lead to hardships, the
concerned authorities-including Revenue Authorities have to
construe them in a reasonable manner. That was the effect and
purport of this court's decision in Indglonal Investment &
Finance Ltd. (supra). This court is of the opinion that a similar
approach is to be adopted in the circumstances of the case."
31. Having given our due consideration to all the relevant
aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the approach in
the cases of the present type should be equitious, balancing
and judicious. Technically, strictly and liberally speaking, the
respondent no. 2 might be justified in denying the exemption
under section 12 of the Act by rejecting such condonation
application, but an assessee, a public charitable trust past 30
years who substantially satisfies the condition for availing such
exemption, should not be denied the same merely on the bar of
limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide
discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities
concerned."
10. In our view also, it does not appear that assessee petitioner
was lethargic or lacked bona fide in making claim beyond the
period of limitation. In fact, we do not understand why would any
party, who is entitled to claim, would intentionally delay in
uploading the required documents.
[2025:RJ-JD:36468-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-4212/2025]
11. A similar view was taken in Shree Jain Swetamber
Murtipujak Tapagachha Sangh Vs. Commissioner of Income
Tax (Exemption) and Anr.2
12. In our view, therefore, petition has to be allowed. We hereby
condone delay. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a),
which reads as under:
"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated
17.08.2023 (Annexure 8) passed under Section 119(2)
(b) of the Act and consequently allow the petitioners
application seeking condonation of delay in filing of Form
10B for the assessment year 2018-2019;"
13. Petition disposed.
(SANDEEP TANEJA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ
15-pooja/-
2 2024 (3) TMI 1327; [2025] 482 ITR 38 (Bom)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
