IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA)

SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 ITO(Exemption), Ward-2(4), Shillong, Aayakar Bhawan, MG Road, Shillong, Shillong (Meghalaya) - 793001 .....................…...………… Appellant vs.

North East Society of Sisters of the Holy Cross, Meiaida Holy Cross Convent, Nongrim Road, Laitumkhrah, Shillong (Meghalaya) – 793003 ...…..….......................... Respondent [PAN: AABTN8138P]

CO No. 03/GTY/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 81/GTY/2025)

Assessment Year: 2020-21 North East Society of Sisters of the Holy Cross, Meiaida Holy Cross Convent, Nongrim Road, Laitumkhrah, Shillong (Meghalaya) – 793003 [PAN: AABTN8138P] ...…..….......................... Respondent vs.

ITO(Exemption), Shillong, Aayakar Bhawan, MG Road, Shillong,(Meghalaya) - 793001 ...…..….......................... Respondent Appearances by:

Assessee represented by : S.P. Bhati, FCA Department represented by : Kausik Ray, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 06.08.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 11.08.2025

ORDER

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1. This is a batch of two cases belonging to the same assessee for the same assessment year. While ITA No. 81/GTY/2025 has been filed by the Revenue, CO No. 03/GTY/2025 has been filed by the assessee. It is seen that the CO is time barred and there is an application for condoning of the said delay as under:

“Sir, We received Form No. 36 and same was kept by Treasurer at his end as he has not understood the same what to do. Later on when the appeal was fixed for hearing the contacted his consultant who enquired about Form No. 36. Thereafter immediately Form No. 36A was filed.

Sir, there was no intention to delay the process but it happened due to ignorance for which we may kindly be condoned and Form No. 36A may kindly be condoned and Form No. 36A may kindly be admitted.”

1.1 Considering the reasons given in the said application for condoning of the delay, the delay is hereby condoned and the CO is admitted for adjudication, along with the main appeal filed by the Revenue.

2. Both these appeals arise from orders u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 18.02.2025, passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (hereafter “the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A).”

2.1 The facts in brief are that the assessee is a charitable trust, who had filed a return of income declaring income of Rs. 8,66,800/-, after claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act amounting to Rs. 16,56,00,042/-. Admittedly, the assessee had filed Form 10B on 10.02.2021, whereas the due date for filing of the said Form was 15.01.2021. Thereafter, the Ld. AO-CPC denied the exemption u/s 11 of the Act as the assessee had not filed Form 10B within the stipulated date.

2.2 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee approached the Addl./JCIT(A) where he could succeed partially as revenue expenses were directed to be allowed for consideration, following certain case laws including the case of Petroleum Stocks Promotion Board reported in 44 taxmann.com 322 (Delhi).

2.1 Both the Revenue and the assessee are aggrieved with the impugned order and have filed the appeal and CO respectively with the following grounds:

ITA No. 81/GTY/2025 “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. JCIT(A) has erred in law by directing the AO to allow the expenses of revenue nature incurred by the appellant for the objects of the Trust.

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. JCIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DDIT(E), Cir-II, Vs. Petroleum Sports Promotion Board (44 taxmann.com 322) without considering that the facts of the case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case, viz, in that, scrutiny assessment had taken place wherein the expenses were dully verified whereas in the present case, no scrutiny assessment has t