IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 31.10.2025 DR BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR EDUCATION SOCIETY ..... Petitioner(s)

Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)

CHANDIGARH ....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present:- Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Advocate for the respondent.

*****

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

1. Through the instant petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 18.06.2025 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Chandigarh, (for short, ‘CIT’), dismissing the petitioner’s application, filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the 1961 Act’), through which application, the petitioner had sought condonation of delay of 94 days in the filing of Form 10B for the Assessment Year 2022-

2023.

2. The petitioner is a charitable society registered under Section 12AA of the 1961 Act. For the Assessment Year 2022-2023, the petitioner was required to file its audit report by 07.10.2022. On 26.09.2022, the petitioner’s Chartered Accountant uploaded the audit report on the e-filing portal of the respondent but such report was formally acknowledged by the petitioner only on 09.01.2023.

3. Since the petitioner had not acknowledged its audit report before the last date fixed to do the needful i.e. 07.11.2022, the exemptions claimed by the petitioner as a charitable society under Section 11 of the 1961 Act were denied resulting in the raising of a demand from the petitioner through demand order dated 31.03.2023. Realising that on account of its late acknowledgement by 94 days the petitioner’s audit report had been ignored by the respondent-department, the petitioner filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the 1961 Act with the respondent-authorities seeking therein condonation of delay of 94 days in the filing of its audit report in Form 10B. Through the impugned order dated 18.06.2025, the petitioner’s prayer for condonation of delay of 94 days has been declined primarily on the ground that the petitioner was habitual in the late filing of its returns and that it also could not make out a case of genuine hardship, which was essentially to be shown for condonation of delay in the filing of Form 10B.

4. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and with their able assistance the record of the case has also been perused.

5. Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference:-

“(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the following power,-

(b) the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of PRINCE SAINI cases, by general or special order, authorize any income-tax authority, not being [a Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] a Commissioner (Appeals) to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after the expiry of the period specified by or under this Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on merits in accordance with law.”

6. In view of the power under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi issued Circular No.16/2024 dated 18.11.2024, as per which the CIT can condone the delay upto 365 days in the filing of Form 10B but only if the assessee is able to convince the CIT that if the delay is not condoned, he would face genuine hardship.

7. It is not disputed that the petitioner had filed its income tax return for the assessment year in question well in time. It is also the admitted position that the petitioner’s audit report, in the prescribed form, had been uploaded by the petitioner’s Chartered Accountant on the respondent’s e-portal on 26.09.2022 which was well before the last date to file such report. The record further reveals that there was a delay of only 94 days in the acknowledgment by the petitioner of the already filed audit report. It can also hardly be disputed that if