Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2026) 02 ITAT CK 3454

Sankalp Society vs Income Tax Officer(E)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi · Decided on 11 February 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member
CASE NUMBER
ITA No. 331/Del/2026 & ITA No. 332/Del/2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 406 words

ORDER

These assessee’s twin appeals for Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2018-19 arise against the Ad dl./JCIT(A)-1, Ahmedabad’s DIN & order No. IT BA/AP L/S/250/2025-26/1084344501(1) & 1084344609(1) dated 02.01.2026 , in proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the asse ssee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

This assessee’s appeal raises the following substantive grounds in ITA No. 331/De l/2026:

“1 . The Ld. JCIT(A) has grossly erred on facts a nd i n (aw i n dismi ssing the appe al in limi ne without adj udicati ng the appeal on merits .

2.

The Ld. JCIT(A) has grossly erred on facts a nd i n law i n sust aini ng t he addition made by the CPC on t he ground that the appellant has not fil ed its audit report in form W-B withi n the due dat e.

3.

The i mpugned i ntimati on by CPC is grossly ba d i n law as it has proc essed a defective ret urn under s ecti on 139(9) whil e no processing was made f or the r et ur n fil ed in compliance to notice under secti on 139(9 ) after rem oval of defects .”

4.

A perusal of the assessee’ s above extracted pleadings indicates that both the learned lower authorities have refused to its section 11 exemption claim for the sole reason of belated filing of tax aud it report Form 10 B, on or before the due date of filing o f section 139(1) return. The Revenue’ s case acco rdingly is that the above compliance o f timely filing of Form 10B tax audit report is mandatory. Case law CIT vs. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd., (2014) 41 taxmann.com 184 (Guj.) has already settled the issue in assessee’s favour that the foregoing compliance of filing/upholding form 10B tax audit report is directory than a mandatory provision. That being the case, I find merit in the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance and direct the learned Assessing Officer to frame its consequential computation as per law after verifying all the relevant facts.

5.

Same order to follow in the assessee’s latter ap peal ITA No. 332/Del/2026.

6.

These assessee’s twin appeals ITA No. 331 & 332/Del/2026 are allowed. A co py of this common order be placed in the respective case files.