Relief to Gujarat Technological University: ITAT Condones Delay in Filing Form 10B, citing Income Tax Portal Difficulties [Read Order]
The delay has been explained by the assessee with cogent evidence, including a legal notice issued to its statutory auditor and the affidavit of the said auditor accepting responsibility for the procedural lapse.
![Relief to Gujarat Technological University: ITAT Condones Delay in Filing Form 10B, citing Income Tax Portal Difficulties [Read Order] Relief to Gujarat Technological University: ITAT Condones Delay in Filing Form 10B, citing Income Tax Portal Difficulties [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/08/28/2081545-itat-itat-ahmedabad-income-tax-income-tax-appellate-tribunal-form-10b-taxscan.webp)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad bench condoned the delay by the Gujarat Technological University in filing Form 10 B as the explanation is bona fide and supported by circumstances such as portal-related difficulties and professional negligence.
Gujarat Technological University, the assessee is a State Technical University established in the year 2007 under Gujarat Act No. 20 of 2007. The assessee is registered under section 12AA of the Act with effect from 01.04.2010 vide order dated 17.06.2010.
For the relevant previous year, the assessee filed its return of income under section 139(1) on 23.10.2019, accompanied by a provisional audit report in Form No. 10B. The return disclosed total receipts of Rs. 1,24,04,16,180/- and claimed exemption of Rs. 69,67,26,332/- under section 11 of the Act and Rs. 54,36,89,848/- under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act.
Practical Case Studies in Forensic Accounting & Corporate Fraud Investigation - CLICK HERE
The said return was processed by CPC under section 143(1) on 03.06.2020, wherein the exemption claimed under section 11 was denied on the ground that details of registration under section 12A/12AA or approval under section 10(23C)(iv)/(v)/(vi)/(via) were not furnished; and the exemption claimed under section 10(23C)(iiiab) was denied for the reason that the institution was not considered as “substantially financed” by the Government.
The assessee filed a revised return under section 139(5) on 30.11.2020 claiming exemption of Rs. 74,05,74,800/- under section 11 and Rs. 52,41,30,536/- under section 10(23C)(iiiab). The revised return was processed on 12.02.2021 allowing exemption under section 11 but continuing to deny exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab).
Subsequently, the assessee moved a series of rectification applications before CPC. The first application dated 17.12.2022 claimed exemption under section 11 at Rs. 75,30,47,170/-, which was processed on 06.06.2023 without allowing the said exemption and without recording reasons. The second application dated 08.06.2023 with identical claims met the same fate on 08.06.2023. The third rectification application dated 27.07.2023 was processed by CPC on 03.08.2023 under section 154 of the Act, which forms the subject matter of the present appeal.
In the rectification order dated 03.08.2023, CPC recorded the processing outcome in tabular form, wherein the claim of exemption under section 11 aggregating to Rs. 1,26,47,05,336/- was disallowed in toto. Consequently, the income was computed without such exemption, and tax was determined at normal rates along with interest under sections 234B and 234C. After giving credit for advance tax of Rs. 26,869/-, a demand of Rs. 69,40,22,390/- was raised.
The order also indicated that the reasons for variance/demand were available in the detailed intimation sent to the assessee’s registered e-mail ID. Though the order did not specifically narrate the cause for denial of exemption, the subsequent proceedings before the CIT(A) make it clear that the disallowance was solely for the reason of delay in furnishing Form No. 10 and Form No. 10B within the statutory time limits.
The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). It was noticed by the CIT(A) that the assessee had filed applications for condonation of delay in furnishing Form No. 10, Form No. 10B, and the revised return, both before the CIT(E), Ahmedabad, on 05.02.2024 and before the CBDT on 12.02.2024. The CIT(E) rejected the condonation application vide order dated 16.02.2024 passed under section 119(2)(b).
The CIT(A) recorded that the sole issue in appeal was the rejection of the claim of exemption under section 11 in the rectification order due to the delayed filing of the prescribed forms. Relying upon CBDT Circular No. 11/2024 dated 01.11.2024, the CIT(A) observed that he had no jurisdiction to condone such delay, as the power to do so vests only with the specified authorities prescribed therein. The CIT(A) further referred to the statutory mandate under section 11(2) for furnishing Form No. 10 within prescribed time and concluded that in absence of condonation by the competent authority, the exemption could not be granted.
During the course of hearing, the Authorised Representative (“AR”) reiterated the factual background of the case and submitted that the sole reason for denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act in the rectification order passed by CPC, Bengaluru, was the alleged delay in furnishing Form No. 10 and Form No. 10B. It was emphasised that the assessee has, though belatedly, furnished both the forms and has otherwise fully and substantively complied with all the statutory requirements prescribed for availing exemption under section 11 of the Act. The AR pointed out that there is no finding in the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) regarding non-fulfilment of any substantive condition for exemption under section 11.
Affective Ways Of Tax Planning for HUF, Partnership Firm and Will - CLICK HERE
The CIT(A) has not disputed that the assessee is registered under section 12AA of the Act and that its activities are genuine and carried out strictly in accordance with its stated objects. The only reason for sustaining the CPC’s action was the delay in filing Form No. 10 and Form No. 10B, without considering the assessee’s specific prayer for admission of the same at the appellate stage.
It was submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to any mala fide intention on the part of the assessee. The lapse occurred on account of professional negligence of the then statutory auditor, as evidenced by the legal notice dated 05.12.2023 issued by the University’s advocate to the said auditor and the detailed affidavit dated 20.05.2024 sworn by the auditor himself.
In the said affidavit, the auditor has accepted responsibility for the delay in filing the relevant forms and in responding to various notices issued by the Income Tax Department and has also affirmed that the exemption under section 11 was claimed in good faith. The AR submitted that the assessee has been granted exemption under section 11 in the past as well as in subsequent years, and there is no dispute on its eligibility. Reliance was placed on the principle that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive rights, particularly when all conditions for exemption are otherwise fulfilled.
The AR placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2017–18 in ITA No. 935/Ahd/2024, order dated 22.04.2025, wherein, after considering various judicial precedents of the Gujarat High Court and the ITAT, the Tribunal categorically held that “delay in filing of Form 10B in the instant case has caused no prejudice to the interest of the Revenue, since such delay is only a procedural lapse” and accordingly set aside the revisionary order passed under section 263. It was contended that the ratio laid down therein squarely applies to the present year and is binding, and therefore, the delay in filing Form No. 10 and Form No. 10B deserves to be condoned and the exemption under section 11 allowed.
The undisputed facts are that the assessee, a State Technical University registered under section 12AA of the Act, claimed exemption under section 11 of the Act in its return of income for the year under consideration. The only reason for denial of the exemption by the CPC, and for upholding such denial by the CIT(A), was the delay in furnishing Form No. 10 and Form No. 10B within the prescribed time limit. There is no finding by the CIT(A) that any of the substantive conditions for claiming exemption under section 11 have not been fulfilled.
3000 Illustrations, Case Studies & Examples for Ind-AS & IFRS, CLICK HERE
It is also an admitted position that the assessee has subsequently filed the prescribed forms, and that its registration under section 12AA and the genuineness of its activities have not been doubted. The delay has been explained by the assessee with cogent evidence, including a legal notice issued to its statutory auditor and the affidavit of the said auditor accepting responsibility for the procedural lapse. The explanation is bona fide and supported by circumstances such as portal-related difficulties and professional negligence.
A two-member bench of Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member and Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountant Member, held that the delay in furnishing Form No. 10 and Form No. 10B in the present case deserves to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. The orders of the CPC and the CIT(A), denying the exemption solely on account of such delay, cannot be sustained.
The tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and directed the jurisdictional Assessing Officer to condone the delay in filing Form No. 10 and Form No. 10B, and thereafter to grant the exemption under section 11 of the Act as claimed by the assessee, subject to verification of the other statutory conditions, which, on the facts, are already satisfied.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates