St.Joseph Educational and Charitable Trust Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 8942 OF 2025

¶2

¶3

2025:KER:29037

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶7

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶8

WP(C) NO. 8942 OF 2025

¶9

PETITIONER(S):

¶10

ST.JOSEPH EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST
AGED 43 YEARS
CHRIST NAGAR CENTRAL SCHOOL (FORMERLY K E CARMEL
SCHOOL), AMACHAL P.O, KUCHAPURAM,
KATTAKADA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL FR.JOJO VADEKKPARAMPIL
CMI, PIN – 695 572.

¶11

BY ADVS. ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS
SRI.JOSEPH MARKOS (SR.)
V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS
ISAAC THOMAS
P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM
JOHN VITHAYATHIL
NABEEL AHAMED S.

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)
AYAKAR BHAVAN, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD,

¶14

KOCHI, PIN – 682 018.

¶15

2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) INCOME TAX OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695 001.

¶16

3THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
NORTH BLOCK, SECRETARIAT BUILDING,
NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶17

SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SR.SC

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO. 8942 OF 2025

¶20

¶21

2025:KER:29037

¶22

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶23

......…............................................. W.P.(C) No.8942 of 2025

¶24

…................................................ Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2025

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Petitioner challenges an order issued under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, ‘the Act’], dismissing an application for condonation of delay in filing audit report in Form 10B for the assessment year 2021-2022.

¶27

Petitioner is a charitable trust registered under Section 12A of Act and is liable to file their returns as well as audit reports for each assessment year. In the assessment year 2021-2022, the audit reports were filed with a delay of 25 days. However, the return, as required by law, was filed within time. Since there was a delay in filing the audit report, an application was filed before the Commissioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation. However, by order dated 08.04.2024, the application was dismissed.

¶28

According to the petitioner, the delay in filing the audit report was inadvertent and it was during the Covid-19 Pandemic time, when the Supreme Court had even condoned delay in most of the matters. It is also pointed out the Commissioner has taken a very rigid stance, instead of adopting a liberal approach.

¶29

I have heard Sri.Joseph Markos, the learned Senior counsel instruction by

¶30

WP(C) NO. 8942 OF 2025

¶31

¶32

2025:KER:29037 Sri.Alexander Joseph Markos, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶33

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that no specific reasons have been given by the Commissioner and instead, he merely came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to provide any reasons or documentary evidence to prove that the delay was caused due to circumstances beyond petitioner’s control. The approach of the Commissioner has been highly hyper-technical and contrary to the well established principles on condonation of delay.

¶34

The requirement of audit report to be filed one month before filing the returns have been brought in by an amendment only recently. Till then, the audit reports could be filed along with the returns. In the instant case, the delay in filing the audit report occurred at a time when Covid-19 Pandemic had struck the country.

¶35

The supreme Court had, in Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2021 (5) KLT 689) suo motu, extended the time for filing various applications in judicial and quasi judicial proceedings. Though the respondents have objects to the applicability of the said judgment, to the filing of an audit report, I am of the view that principles embodied in the said judgment of the Supreme Court could be adopted, especially since the delay in filing audit report is only 25 days. In this context, it is also pertinent to mention that the CBDT had extended the time to file returns till 15.03.2022, and therefore, petitioner should have filed the audit report 30 days before the returns. Since the change in dates has

¶36

WP(C) NO. 8942 OF 2025

¶37

¶38

2025:KER:29037 caused confusion to many persons and the delay is very minimal, I am of the view that a rigid stance ought not to have been adopted. The order declining to condone the delay is liable to be interfered with.

¶39

Accordingly, Ext.P8 order is set aside and the delay in filing the audit report for the assessment year 2021-2022 is hereby condoned.

¶40

The writ petition is allowed as above.

¶41

sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶42

AMV/04/04/2025

¶43

WP(C) NO. 8942 OF 2025

¶44

¶45

2025:KER:29037

¶46

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8942/2025

¶47

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶48

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 06.08.2024 IN` `W.P.(C) NO. 10438/2024. AND CONNECTED CASES`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.1/2022 DATED` `11.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF` `DIRECT TAXES (CBDT)`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 12.03.2022` `AND AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10B`
`EXHIBIT P3(A)`	`TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `INCOME` `TAX` `RETURN` `ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 15.03.2022`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.01.2022 OF THE` `HON’BLE SUPREME COURT IN SUO MOTO W.P.` `(C)3/2020`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 2/2020 DATED` `03.01.2020 ISSUED BY CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT` `TAXES`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 16/2022 DATED` `19.07.2022 OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT` `TAXES`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF` `DELAY DATED 01.08.2022 FILED BY THE` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY OF ORDER 08.04.2024 OF THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT`

St.Joseph Educational and Charitable Trust v. the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

St.Joseph Educational and Charitable Trust v. the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Rahim Tharayil, Vs the Superintendent

C.P. Roy Vs State of Kerala

St. John’S Convent Vs the District Collector

Raghavan Pillai Kunjulekshmi Bhoodes Vs the Secretary

Sree Narayana Public School Vs the Kollengode Grama Panchayath

Sheela Francis Parakkal Vs the Authorised Officer