Courts must prioritize equitable considerations over strict adherence to deadlines, particularly for charitable trusts demonstrating bona fide reasons for delays.

Order :

K.R. SHRIRAM, CJ.

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 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 27^th 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 17^th 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 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 India, 2024 (4) TMI 939 ; [2025] 482 ITR 41 (Bom) 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