SARVODAYA CHARITABLE TRUST vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6097 of 2020 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR FIXING DATE OF HEARING) NO. 1 of 2020 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6097 of 2020 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Sd/-
and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed YES

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? YES
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? NO
================================================================
SARVODAYA CHARITABLE TRUST Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the Petitioner(s).
MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Respondent(s).
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA Date : 09/12/2020

1	Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	YES
2	To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	YES
3	Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	NO
4	Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?	NO

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)

1. 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) quash and set aside the impugned orders at Annexure-A to this petition and direct the respondent no.2 to condone the delay;

(b) pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, to stay implementation and operation of the impugned notice dated 28.8.2018 at Annexure-C to this petition.

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

3. The writ-applicant is a public charitable trust. The writ-applicant seeks to challenge the order passed by the respondent no.2 dated 19th 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.10B of the Act 1961 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The writ-applicant also seeks to challenge the rectification order dated 12th February 2020, wherein the respondent no.2 rejected the rectification application.

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. For the Assessment Year 2016-17, the due date for filing the return of income was extended from 30th September 2016 to 17th October 2016 vide order under Section 119 of the Act 1961 dated 9th September 2016. The Auditor of the writ-applicant filed the audit report in the Form no.10B under Section 12A(b) of the Act 1961 on 6th October 2016. The said 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 alongwith the return of income.

5. An order under Section 143(1) came to be passed dated 17th March 2018 rejecting the benefit of exemption to the writ-applicant and a demand notice for Rs.1,67,41,980=00 came to be issued on 28th August 2018. The notice referred to above stated the reason for demand on account of non e-filing of the audit report in the Form no.10B and suggested that the same may be filed with a request to condone the delay.

6. It is the case of the writ-applicant that the aforesaid notice ultimately brought the fact to their knowledge as regards the non-filing of the audit report.

7. On receipt of the demand notice dated 28th August 2018 referred to above, the writ-applicant e-filed the audit report in the Form no.10B on 2nd September 2018 and requested to condone the delay vide letter dated 5th September 2018 addressed to the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2, vide his reply dated 23rd October 2018, informed the writ-applicant that no ground for condonation of delay was made out and that it was only after the issuance of the demand notice that the writ-applicant had e-filed the audit report.

8. On 12th November 2018, the writ-applicant replied to the respondent no.2 explaining the entire chain of events and requested to condone the delay. However, another notice dated 26th December 2018 came to be issued to the writ-applicant asking the trustees or any legal representative to remain present with the documentary evidence for the purpose of substantiating the claim.

9. The writ-applicant appeared before the respondent no.2 and tried to make good its case for the purpose of condonation of delay. However, the application ultimately came to be rejected vide the order dated 19th August 2019.

10. It appears from the materials on record that relying on the Circular No.10 of 2019 issued by the Cent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document