Kotak Family Foundation v. CIT(E)
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
The reported High Court judgment treats delayed e-verification of an otherwise timely audit report during the COVID period as a procedural lapse warranting condonation where the delay was not mala fide.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 11; 12A; 12AA; 80G
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Delayed e-verification of timely Form 10B: The reported High Court judgment treats delayed e-verification of an otherwise timely audit report during the COVID period as a procedural lapse warranting condonation where the delay was not mala fide.
Material facts and background
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Digitally signed by SMITA RAJNIKANT SMITA RAJNIKANT JOSHI JOSHI Date: 2025.06.27 18:25:23 +0530
Adv. Madhur Agrawal with Adv. Punit Shah i/b. Adv. Atul K. Jasani for the Petitioner. Adv. Prathamesh Bhosle, for the Respondents. CORAM:
Form 10B, was rejected by the 1 st Respondent, inter alia, on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for the aforesaid delay.
Charitable Trust established under a Trust Deed dated 2 nd May, 2017. The Petitioner – Trust has also received approval from the 1 st Respondent under Sections 12A/ 12AA on 16th January, 2018 and under Section 80G on 13 th August, 2018.
income tax return was 15th February, 2022 as per Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”) Press Release dated 11 th January, 2022 and which had extended the due date for filing the return of income in view of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Petitioner-Trust filed its return of income on 30 th December, 2021 which was within time.
Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”), where a charitable institution or trust could not apply 85% of its income for charitable purposes during previous year, the charitable institution or trust could apply in Form 9A electronically to the Assessing Officer before the expiry of the due date for filing of income tax return under Section 139 (1) of the IT Act for accumulation of the said income to be applied in subsequent years. Page 2 of 7 JUNE 24, 2025 S.R.JOSHI
Appellant / assessee submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Revenue / respondent submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
([2022] 134 taxmann.com 307 (SC)) whereby time was extended due to the Covid-19 pandemic, then the delay would be 254 days. If we are to apply the extension granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then admittedly, the delay is of 101 days. When one takes these facts into consideration, coupled with the fact that serious prejudice and hardship would be caused to the Petitioner if the delay is not condoned, and which was purely out of an inadvertence, we are of the view that the 1 st Respondent was wholly unjustified in not condoning the delay.
Commissioner of Income Tax, while considering such condonation, shall satisfy himself that the Applicant was prevented by reasonable cause from filing such Form within the stipulated time and that the case is of genuine hardship on merits. In the facts of the present case, if the delay is not condoned, genuine hardship would be faced by the Petitioner inasmuch as the exemption claimed by the Petitioner, and to which it would otherwise be entitled to because it’s a charitable trust, would be denied on this technical ground. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the 1 st Respondent ought to have taken a justice oriented approach rather than a pedantic one and condoned the delay. We also find that in the similar facts, this Court in the case of Sau Dwarkabai Tai Karwa Charitable Public Trust v/s.
Operative decision and relief
also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment
- No reliable precedent list was extracted automatically; use the full judgment for the citation chain.
This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.
Ratio and legal principle
The decision turns on Delayed e-verification of timely Form 10B. The operative result is classified as Disposed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Why this judgment matters
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Delayed e-verification of timely Form 10B. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
Practitioner action points
- Keep registration, audit-report, Form 10/10B/10BB and filing timestamps together; many exemption disputes are procedural and depend on when the form existed versus when it was uploaded.
- For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.
Do not over-read this case
- The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy
- Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result.
- Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
How to apply this decision in practice
This Bombay High Court decision should be used by matching the client’s facts to the precise controversy in the case—Delayed e-verification of timely Form 10B—rather than by relying only on the result. Start with the statutory version applicable to the relevant year and compare it with 11, 12A, 12AA, 80G. Amendments, notifications, later Supreme Court/High Court decisions and a different procedural stage can materially change the answer.
For an assessment or litigation file, retain the documents that prove the factual bridge on which the judgment turns: the original notice/order, replies and objections, acknowledgements of filing/service, ledger and banking trail where relevant, contracts or property instruments where relevant, and the complete appellate chronology. If the case succeeds on jurisdiction or natural justice, do not assume the same outcome where the authority cures that defect. If it succeeds on evidence, identify exactly which documents the Court or Tribunal considered persuasive.
Before citing the case, verify the latest appellate status and whether the decision is final, distinguished, stayed, reversed or confined to its facts. The packaged PDF and source trail should be read together with the current statutory text.
Finin2min reliance rule: cite the case for the narrow legal proposition actually decided, record any contrary authority, and attach the full judgment to the working paper or litigation file. This reduces the risk of a headnote or short summary being used outside its factual and statutory context.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence
Decision support built around the judgment: reliance, fact match, Q&A, section impact, related-case network and practical next steps.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | High Court |
|---|---|
| Reliance effect | Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. |
| Source integrity | A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending. |
| Subsequent history | Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. |
| Finin2min status | Later-history check open |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- Your dispute raises the same core issue: Delayed e-verification of timely Form 10B.
- The same statutory provisions or materially equivalent provisions apply: 11, 12A, 12AA, 80G.
- Your matter is at a comparable the same procedural and factual stage stage.
- Your documentary/evidentiary record is materially similar to the facts the Bombay High Court considered: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Digitally signed by SMITA RAJNIKANT SMITA RAJNIKANT JOSHI JOSHI Date: 2025.06.27 18:25:23 +0530 Adv.
- The same legal regime or assessment-period rules relevant to AY 2021-22 apply to your matter.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court ruling changes the legal position.
- The statutory provision was amended for your year or transaction.
- Your evidence, transaction structure, notice chronology or procedural stage differs on a fact the judgment treated as material.
- The case succeeded on a narrow jurisdictional/procedural defect that the authority has cured in your matter.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Kotak Family Foundation?
The reported High Court judgment treats delayed e-verification of an otherwise timely audit report during the COVID period as a procedural lapse warranting condonation where the delay was not mala fide.
Which facts mattered most to the result?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Digitally signed by SMITA RAJNIKANT SMITA RAJNIKANT JOSHI JOSHI Date: 2025.06.27 18:25:23 +0530 Adv. Madhur Agrawal with Adv. Punit Shah i/b.
What did the Bombay High Court ultimately decide?
also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
What legal principle can be taken from this judgment?
The decision turns on Delayed e-verification of timely Form 10B. The operative result is classified as Disposed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Which provisions should be checked before relying on the case?
The case engages 11, 12A, 12AA, 80G. The relevant statutory version for AY 2021-22 should be checked together with any later amendment, notification, circular and controlling higher-court authority.
When is this judgment most useful to a taxpayer or adviser?
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Delayed e-verification of timely Form 10B . Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
What could make this judgment distinguishable or unsafe to rely on?
The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result. Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Can this judgment be cited as current law without another check?
Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending.
Section / provision impact
- 11 — 11 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of delayed e-verification of timely form 10b. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- 12A — 12A is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of delayed e-verification of timely form 10b. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- 12AA — 12AA is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of delayed e-verification of timely form 10b. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- 80G — 80G is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of delayed e-verification of timely form 10b. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
How the decision changes your analysis
Before using this authority, frame the issue under 11, 12A, 12AA, 80G and identify the decisive facts/evidence. The result should not be assumed from the case title alone.
The decision turns on Delayed e-verification of timely Form 10B. The operative result is classified as Disposed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.
Case network: similar and different outcomes
Closest related cases in the Finin2min repository
Related cases with a different result
Related-case links are repository similarity connections, not a claim that one judgment cites or overrules another. Use the cited-authority list and later-history check for formal precedent analysis.
Working-paper citation
Full judgment and source trail
Read / download the clean local judgment copy
| Packaged source class | SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING |
|---|---|
| Pages | 7 |
| SHA-256 | 5729bcf5b0c69dd4356951cd3518292c9586d7fcb4ff5e716fb92a3be5c50a24 |
| Original source URL | Not exposed publicly. Original provenance retained only in the private source-closure ledger. |
| Source authentication | Sanitized local full-text copy - official primary replacement pending |