Disposed

Chetana Trust v. Central Board of Direct Taxes (Cbdt), Delhi

Orissa HC13 Feb 2025WP(C)/3200/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Revenue order rejecting the petitioner's Form-10B due to late acknowledgement of an auditor's upload. The High Court held the Revenue's reasoning was perverse as the upload was timely, though acknowledgement was late. The impugned order was set aside and the Form-10B was directed to be acted upon.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20.01.2025 set aside; petitioner's Form-10B directed to be acted upon by revenue.

Chetana Trust Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Cbdt), Delhi — Income Tax | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.3200 of 2025

¶3

Chetana Trust, Subarnapur

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Represented by Adv.– Mr. Chitrasen Parida, Advocate -Versus-

¶6

Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Represented by Adv.– Mr. A. Kedia, Advocate (Junior Standing Counsel)

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶11

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

ORDER

Order No.

01.

13.02.2025

1. Mr. Parida, learned advocate appears on behalf of

¶17

petitioner and submits, his client is a charitable trust. It is required to have its accounts audited and Form-10B duly filed. Last date for

¶18

filing of Form-10B was 15^th February, 2022, pertaining to assessment year 2021-22. Drawing attention to print of Form-10B he points out, the auditor had uploaded it on 30^th January, 2022, well before 15^th February, 2022. However, the uploading was not

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

complete till his client acknowledged the same in his profile. The acknowledgement was done late, on 13^th March, 2022.

¶21

2. Referring to paragraph-2.1 in impugned order dated 20^th January, 2025 he submits, reason given was that his client had failed to take steps to appoint auditor and assist. This reasoning is perverse. The order be interfered with for setting it aside.

¶22

3. Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue and points out from print of Form10B that acknowledgement number given indicates the uploading was on 13^th March, 2022. Last six numbers in the acknowledgement number indicates date. As such, petitioner was wholly out of time.

¶23

4. We notice from the print that particulars regarding uploading have been given as uploaded on 30^th January, 2022 at 08:07:54 PM. It is thus clear that the acknowledgement number was put only after petitioner had acknowledged uploading of the form as in relation to him.

¶24

5. We see that petitioner’s audit report was uploaded within time but not acknowledged by him. This is not a case where petitioner wanted alteration of information supplied by the form.

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

He did acknowledge it but beyond the last date. Contrasting the

¶27

facts with finding in impugned order that petitioner had not taken steps to appoint auditor and assist, we must say, the finding is perverse.

¶28

6. Impugned order is set aside. We direct petitioner’s Form-

¶29

10B be acted upon by revenue.

¶30

7. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

(Arindam Sinha) Acting Chief Justice

(M.S. Sahoo)

Judge

S. Behera

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Feb-2025 18:04:49

¶37

Page 3 of 3

Chetana Trust v. Central Board of Direct Taxes (Cbdt), Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetana Trust v. Central Board of Direct Taxes (Cbdt), Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sankarsan Das Vs the Collector, Bhadrak.

Nirad Kumar Sahoo Vs Union of India

Debendra Nath Behera Vs State of Odisha

Dr.Surendra Kumar Satapathy Vs Chief Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise and Customs , Odisha

M/S Babulu Patel, Sundargarh. Vs Commissioner GST and Central Excise, Rourkela.

M/S Ocl Iron and Steels Ltd., Kolkata Vs Union of India