Point of Law: The general and wide powers given to the Board in this regard, “if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship in any case.....”, not only gives wide powers to the Board, but confers upon it a obligation to consider facts relevant for condonation of delay as well as the merit of the claim simultaneously. If the claim of exemption or other claim on merits is eminently a fit case for making such claim, it should not normally be defeated on the bar of limitation, particularly, when the delay or the time period for which condonation is sought is not abnormally large. It will of course depend upon the facts of the each case, where such a time period or the merit of the claim deserves such exercise of discretion in favour of the assessee under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act or not and therefore, no straight jacket formula or guidelines can be laid down in this regard. However, such orders passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes being a quasi-judicial order is always open to judicial review by the higher constitutional courts. If the good conscience of the Courts is pricked, even though such orders rejecting the claims on the bar of limitation may appear to be prima facie tenable, the Courts may exercise their jurisdiction to set aside such orders and allow the claims on merits, setting aside the bar of limitation.

ORDER :

ILESH J. VORA, J.

1. As the issues raised in all the captioned writ-applications are the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the Special Civil Application No.8977 of 2020 is treated as the lead matter.

3. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicant, a public charitable trust, has prayed for the following reliefs :

“(a) A writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.08.2019 rejecting application for condonation of delay u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act;

(b) A writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to allow filing of Form 10 belatedly;

(c) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and more appropriate in order to grant interim relief to the petitioner;

(d) Any other and further relief deemed just and proper be granted in the interest of justice;

(e) To provide for the cost of this petition.”

The facts giving rise to this writ-application may be summarised as under :

The writ-applicant is a public charitable trust. The writ-applicant seeks to challenge the order passed by the respondent dated 26th August 2019 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act 1961’), rejecting the application filed by the writ-applicant for condonation of delay in filing the Form no.10 of the Act 1961 for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

4. It is the case of the writ-applicant that being a public charitable trust, it is registered with the Charity Commissioner as well as with the Income Tax authorities under Section 12A of the Act 1961 past more than 30 years. The books of accounts of the writ-applicant are being audited regularly and the return of income is also filed without any issues.

5. The auditor of the writ-applicant filed the audit report in the Form no.10B under Section 12A(b) of the Act 1961 on 1st September 2014. The writ-applicant had also filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15 on 27th September 2014. However, as there was some defect, the writ-applicant filed a revised return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15 on 22nd November 2014, declaring the total income NIL and claiming refund of Rs.1,92,850.00 after declaring exemption of Rs.73,43,699.00 under Section 11(1) of the Act 1961 and Rs.17,50,000.00 under Section 11(2) of the Act 1961. The document was required to be confirmed by the writ-applicant using the online account. Unfortunately, the trustees of the trust failed to confirm the same and, as a result, the audit report did not get e-filed along with the return of income.

6. It is the case of the writ-applicant that the return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 14th January 2016 by the respondent, rejecting the benefit of exemption to the writ-applicant and a demand notice for Rs.2,17,210.00 came to be issued. The notice referred to above stated the reason for demand on account of non e-filing of the Form no.10 along with the return of income and suggested that the same may be filed with a request to condone the delay.

7. It is the case of the writ-applicant that the aforesaid notice ultimately brought the fact to their knowledge as regards the non e-filing of the Form no.10 of the Act 1961 along with the return of income.

8. On receipt of the demand notice referred to above, the writ-applicant e-filed the Form no.10 claiming exemption under Section 11(2) of the Act 1961 for Rs.17,50,000.00 and requested to condone the delay in filing the Form no.10 vide letter dated 11th February 2019 addressed to the respondent.

9. It is the case of the writ-applicant that the respondent issued a notice dated 2nd April 2019, to show-cause why the application for condonation under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act 1961 filed by the writ-applicant should not be rejected as no genuine hardship had