Safiya Malik

The High Court of Bombay Division Bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar allowed a writ petition by a charitable trust challenging the rejection of its request to condone a delay of 509 days in filing Form 9A for Assessment Year 2022-23. The matter arose after an amendment introduced by the Finance Act 2022 required charitable institutions to compute application of income strictly on an actual payment basis from A.Y. 2022-23, replacing the earlier accrual-based approach. The trust, having relied on an erroneous published text, sought condonation when it later filed the form. The Court set aside the departmental order and held that the delay required condonation to avoid hardship and to give effect to the provision’s intent.

The petitioner, Savitribai Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kamlapur, approached the Court challenging the orders issued by the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation), Pune, refusing to condone a delay of 509 days in filing Form 9A for Assessment Year 2022-23. The trust had filed its return of income declaring nil income after claiming exemption under Section 11. It stated that it believed, based on the version of the Income-tax Act contained in a published bare act, that the amendment introduced by the Finance Act 2022—requiring application of income to be computed on an actual payment basis under the Explanation below Section 11(7)—applied from the subsequent assessment year.

Also Read: Supreme Court Recalls Vanashakti Judgment Restricting Post-Facto Environmental Clearances Through 2:1 Majority; Justice Bhuyan Records Dissent

During assessment proceedings, the trust learned that the amended provision applied from A.Y. 2022-23. Since its application of income on actual payment basis did not meet the prescribed threshold, it submitted Form 9A belatedly and applied for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b). The authority rejected the application, stating that reliance on a private publication could not justify the delay.

The trust filed a review application, contending that relevant legal material and circumstances had not been considered. It submitted an affidavit from its chartered accountant explaining that the delay arose from reliance on an inaccurate publication. The authority dismissed the review, stating that no new facts had been produced.

The Court recorded that “the Petitioner has made out a case for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b)” and considered the reliance placed on the publication. It observed that “the Taxmann Publication is a renowned Publication in the Taxation field whereby majority of the Tax Practitioners, Advocates, Chartered Accountants, Jurists, etc. refer to the Bare Act of the Income Tax Act published by them.” The Court stated that the petitioner and its advisor “would never know that such a publication would carry a mistake as to the date from which an amendment to the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been made applicable.”

The Bench acknowledged the revenue’s argument regarding the need to rely on primary statutory sources, recording that although “the Petitioner ought to have been more careful,” nevertheless “a bonafide mistake in relying on a misprint contained in such a publication on which almost everyone relies, cannot oust the Petitioner from the beneficial provision of Section 119(2)(b).” It noted that the mistake was realised only during assessment when the assessing officer disagreed with the petitioner’s understanding based on the publication. The Court recorded that upon learning of the correct applicability, the assessee “immediately filed Form No. 9A on 30th March 2024.”

The Court further observed that the assessing officer pointed out the delay and subsequently denied benefits under Sections 11 and 12. It stated that “the delay in filing Form No. 9A was inadvertent and Respondent No. 1 ought to have condoned the delay.” The Court also recorded that “the Petitioner would not be at an advantage or gain any benefit from the delay in filing its Form 9A.”

On the issue of hardship, the Bench stated that “grave hardship would be caused to the Petitioner if the delay in filing Form 9A is not condoned.” It noted that the trust would face a significant tax liability merely due to late filing and that “the Petitioner -Trust ought not to be foisted with such hardship because of a misprint in the Bare Act published by a renowned Publication such as the Taxmann Publication.” The Court recorded that the trust “does not seem to gain any benefit from such a delay.”

Also Read: Arbitral Tribunal’s Refusal To Share Key Documents Vitiated Fairness Of Proceedings: Bombay High Court

The Court directed that “we accordingly quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17th March 2025 passed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act.”

“Now that the impugned order is quashed, we also hereby condoned the delay on the part of the Petitioner Trust in filing of Form 9A for Assessment Year 2022–23. Rule is made absolute in the above terms and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof.” It concluded that “there shall be no order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Saurabh S. Soparkar (Senior Counsel) a/w Mr. Sanket S. Bora a/w Ms. Vidhi K. Punmiya a/w Mr. Amiya R. Das i/b SPCM Legal Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Kotangle a/w Mr. Vishnu Chaudhari, Mr. Nikitesh Kotangle, Ms. Neha Pende, Advocates

Case Title: Savitribai Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. Directorate General of Income Tax
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:49195-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 11261 of 2025
Bench: Justice B. P. Colabawalla, Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar