‘Misprint in TAXMANN Income Tax Bare Act’: Bombay HC Condones 509-Day Delay in Filing Form 9A, says Such Errors cannot Adversely Affect Assessee [Read Order]

The Bombay High Court has condoned a delay of nearly 509 days in filing Form 9A for Assessment Year 2022-23, after holding that the delay arose from a bona fide reliance on a misprint in the Taxmann Income Tax Bare Act.

The Court observed that Taxmann is a widely respected publication used by tax practitioners, chartered accountants, and advocates across the country, and an inadvertent mistake in such a publication cannot deprive a charitable institution of substantial statutory benefits.

The Bench of Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar observed “we find that the Petitioner has made out a case for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b). We say this because the Taxmann Publication is a renowned Publication in the Taxation field whereby majority of the Tax Practitioners, Advocates, Chartered Accountants, Jurists, etc. refer to the Bare Act of the Income Tax Act published by them. The Petitioner or its Tax Advisor would never know that such a publication would carry a mistake as to the date from which an amendment to the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been made applicable.”

Savitribai Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kamlapur, petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its delay-condonation request by the income tax authorities.

The trust had filed its return of income on 19 October 2023, claiming exemption under Section 11. Under the Finance Act 2022, Explanation below Section 11(7) had amended the law to mandate that charitable trusts must compute “application of income” strictly on an actual payment basis.

However, relying on the 67th edition of the Taxmann Income Tax Act, the petitioner believed the amendment was applicable only from AY 2023-24. Consequently, it computed application of income on an accrual basis and found no requirement to file Form 9A at the time of filing the return.

The petitioner later discovered during the ongoing scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) that the amendment actually applied from AY 2022-23 itself. This meant that its application of income, recalculated based on actual payment, fell short of the required 85% threshold, making Form 9A mandatory. Realising the error, the petitioner immediately filed Form 9A on 30 March 2024 and subsequently filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of the 509-day delay.

However, the condonation request was rejected by the income tax authorities through orders dated 17 March 2025 and 30 June 2025, holding that a private publisher’s misprint could not justify the delay, and that ignorance of the correct statutory provision was no excuse.

The Revenue argued before the High Court that authoritative sources such as the Finance Act, CBDT clarifications, and ICAI communications had clearly notified that the amendment was effective from AY 2022-23. It contended that the petitioner had been negligent in relying solely on a commercial publication instead of verifying the primary source.

The High Court rejected this reasoning. The Court held that the petitioner’s reliance on the misprinted edition was bona fide, and the mistake was inadvertent. The trust gained no advantage by filing Form 9A belatedly, and denying condonation would expose it to substantial and avoidable tax liability.

The Court also noted that once the petitioner realised the error during assessment proceedings, it acted promptly by filing Form 9A and seeking condonation. The petitioner's Chartered Accountant even filed an affidavit before the Court reaffirming that the delay resulted solely from the misprint in the Taxmann Bare Act.

In these circumstances, the Court held that refusing condonation under Section 119(2)(b) would cause “grave hardship,” which is contrary to the very purpose of the provision.

The court said that the trust should not suffer for a bona fide reliance on an erroneous publication that practitioners nationwide routinely depend upon. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the impugned orders rejecting the condonation plea and formally condoned the delay in filing Form 9A for AY 2022-23. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates