A claimed Form 10B filing with the Assessing Officer warrants reconsideration despite non-upload to CPC.

The petitioner, a religious trust claiming exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, challenged an order under Section 154 rejecting its rectification request concerning the CPC’s intimation under Section 143(1) for assessment year 2015–16.

The rejection rested on the grounds that the mandatory audit report in Form 10B had not been filed and that the rectification request was time-barred.

The Trust asserted that it had submitted the Form 10B report dated 25 September 2015 to the Assessing Officer with its communication dated 8 February 2019.

The respondents disputed that the communication could be treated as a timely rectification application and contended that the report had not been uploaded to the CPC portal.

1. Whether the Assessing Officer was required to reconsider the Section 154 rejection where the Trust claimed that Form 10B had been filed with the Assessing Officer, notwithstanding that it was not uploaded to the CPC portal

2. Whether the Trust should be permitted to submit a copy of Form 10B so the Assessing Officer could examine whether the Section 143(1) intimation contained an error apparent from the record

Section 12A(1)(b) requires the prescribed audit report, identified here as Form 10B, for a trust claiming exemption under Sections 11 and 12.

Section 154 permits rectification of a mistake apparent from the record, while Section 154(7) prescribes a four-year period for making a rectification.

The Court did not finally determine whether the Trust’s request was time-barred or whether the intimation contained a rectifiable error; it directed reconsideration of the relevant record and the claimed filing of Form 10B.

The Assessing Officer rejected rectification on the basis that Form 10B had not been filed with either return, while the Trust maintained that it had supplied the report with its 2019 communication.

The Court observed that the communication referred to enclosures and that the respondents could not seriously contest that the report might have accompanied it.

If the report was in fact before the Assessing Officer, the question whether the intimation contained an apparent error required re-examination.

The Court was also not persuaded that the matter could be disposed of solely because the report had not been uploaded to the CPC portal, if it had been filed with the Assessing Officer.

The proceedings were restored to the first respondent, who was directed to determine whether Form 10B had accompanied the Trust’s communication dated 8 February 2019 and, in any event, to permit the Trust to provide a copy of the report and examine whether the Section 143(1) intimation contained an error apparent from the record.