JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The present appeal is instituted under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 30.3.2011, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench “A”, Chandigarh in ITA No. 1117/Chd/2010 for the assessment year 2005-06. 2. Pertinent facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the appellant was served with a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to “A.O.” for brevity sake). The assessee Board filed its return of income on 24.1.2007. The return was taken up with the scrutiny by the A.O. The A.O. passed order on 20.11.2007. The relevant extract of the same reads as under: “It is noticed that assessee has not applied 85% of income towards the objects of the Board. Un-audited accounts have been furnished with the return of income. Total receipts have been shown at Rs. 9,88,84,596/- and the excess of income over expenditure which has been transferred to capital fund is Rs. 7,60,44,384/- meaning thereby that assessee has utilized/applied only Rs. 2,28,40,412/- whereas. It was required to utilize Rs. 8,40,51,906/- or more. No notice to accumulate or set-apart the income in the manner prescribed for the purpose has been furnished to the Assessing Officer either. Therefore, the assessee does not fulfil the condition of having utilized 85% of its receipts nor any notice for accumulation or setting apart has been furnished. Thus, income of the assessee is assessed at Rs. 6,12,11,694/- (8,40,51,906-2,28,40,412)”. 3. The assessee, after the assessment order was made, filed form No.10, i.e. notice to the prescribed authority prescribed under Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules along with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the notice before the Commissioner on 5.7.2008. The Commissioner condoned the delay relying upon circular No. 273, dated 3.6.1980 on 17.11.2008. In the meantime, the assessee had also filed an appeal before the Central Income Tax Tribunal (Appeal) against the assessment order dated 20.11.2007. The CIT (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on 17.10.2008. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal on 25.5.2009 and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to examine the matter afresh in the light of order passed by the Commissioner on 17.11.2008. 4. The CIT (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on 17.10.2008. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal on 25.5.2009 and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to examine the matter afresh in the light of order passed by the Commissioner on 17.11.2008. 4. It is pertinent to mention here that after the order was passed by the Tribunal on 25.5.2009, the Commissioner realized on the basis of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT versus Nagpur Hotel Owners’ Association, 247 ITR 201 that he was not competent to pass order dated 17.11.2008. Thereafter, he passed order on 28.6.2010 withdrawing earlier order dated 17.11.2008. The appellant filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against order dated 28.6.2010. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 30.3.2011. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate has supported the order dated 17.11.2008 rendered by Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla, whereby he had condoned the delay. He has vehemently argued that the learned Commissioner has rightly relied upon circular No. 273 dated 3.6.1980. He has lastly contended that the judgment relied upon by the Commissioner while withdrawing the earlier order dated 17.11.2008 on 28.6.2010 was not applicable. 6. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned senior Advocate has supported the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 8. In sequel to the notice issued to the assessee for the assessment year 2005-2006, assessment order was passed on 20.11.2007. The assessee has filed form No. 10 before the Commissioner on 5.7.2008. The form was required to be filed before the Assessing Officer and not before the Commissioner. The Commissioner while passing order dated 17.11.2008 has not taken into consideration the definitive law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT versus Nagpur Hotel Owners’ Association. He realized the mistake committed by him while passing order dated 17.11.2008 and passed fresh order on 28.6.2010 recalling order dated 17.11.2008. He has categorically held in his order dated 28.6.2010 that no notice was filed for the assessment year 2005-2006 upto the date of assessment. 9. The assessee has also assailed the assessment order dated 20.11.2007 before the CIT(A). He dismissed the same on 17.10.2008. He has categorically held in his order dated 28.6.2010 that no notice was filed for the assessment year 2005-2006 upto the date of assessment. 9. The assessee has also assailed the assessment order dated 20.11.2007 before the CIT(A). He dismissed the same on 17.10.2008. The learned Tribunal has disposed of the appeal and ordered the matter to be decided afresh on the basis of order dated 17.11.2008. In fact, as we have noticed earlier, this order could not be passed by him. He has rectified the mistake in accordance with law by recalling this order on 28.6.2010. The Commissioner was not the Assessing Authority. He has exercised the authority which was not vested in him while passing order dated 17.11.2008. Learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the Commissioner wrongly relied upon circular No. 273 dated 3.6.1980. 10. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nagpur Hotel owners’ Association, (2001) 247 I.T.R. 201 have held as under: “It is abundantly clear from the wording of sub-section (2) of section 11 that it is mandatory for the person claiming the benefit of section 11 to intimate to the assessing authority the particulars required, under rule 17 in Form No. 10 of the Rules. If during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer does not have the necessary information, question of excluding such income from assessment does not arise at all. As a matter of fact, this benefit of excluding this particular part of the income from the net of taxation arises from section 11 and is subjected to the conditions specified therein. Therefore, it is necessary that the assessing authority must have this information at the time he completes the assessment. In the absence of any such information, it will not be possible for the assessing authority to give the assessee the benefit of such exclusion and once the assessment is so completed, in our opinion, it would be futile to find fault with the assessing authority for having included such income in the assessable income of the assessee. In the absence of any such information, it will not be possible for the assessing authority to give the assessee the benefit of such exclusion and once the assessment is so completed, in our opinion, it would be futile to find fault with the assessing authority for having included such income in the assessable income of the assessee. Therefore, even assuming that there is no valid limitation prescribed under the Act and the Rules even then, in our opinion, it is reasonable to presume that the intimation required under section 11 has to be furnished before the assessing authority completes the concerned assessment because such requirement is mandatory and without the particulars of this income, the assessing authority cannot entertain the claim of the assessee under section 11 of the Act, therefore, compliance with the requirement of the Act will have to be any time before the assessment proceedings. Further, any claim for giving the benefit of section 11 on the basis of information supplied subsequent to the completion of assessment would mean that the assessment order will have to be reopened. In our opinion, the Act does not contemplate such re-opening of the assessment. In the case in hand it is evident from the records of the case that the respondent did not furnish the required information till after the assessments for the relevant years were completed. In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that the stand of the Revenue that the High Court erred in answering the first question in favour of the assessee is correct, and we reverse that finding and answer the said question in the negative and against the assessee. In view of our answer to the first question, we agree with Mr. Verma that it is not necessary to answer the second question on the facts of this case.” 11. The order passed by the Commissioner on 17.11.2008 was wrong. It has been passed on mistaken assessment that the delay could be condoned by him under circular No. 273 dated 3.6.1980 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxis. It is reiterated that he had no power to condone the delay in filing statutory form No. 10 after the assessment by the Assessing Officer. Form No. 10 has been filed, as noticed above, on 5.7.2008, though the Assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 20.11.2007. It is reiterated that he had no power to condone the delay in filing statutory form No. 10 after the assessment by the Assessing Officer. Form No. 10 has been filed, as noticed above, on 5.7.2008, though the Assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 20.11.2007. There was mistake on the record, which has rightly been rectified by the Commissioner while reviewing the order dated 17.11.2008 on 28.6.2010. 12. Order passed by the Commissioner on 28.6.2010 and the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30.3.2011 are in conformity with law. There is neither any illegality nor any perversity in the orders passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 13. Mr. Ajay Vaidya has placed strong reliance on Association of Corporation and Apex societies of Handlooms vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, (2013) 351 287 (Delhi). This judgment is not applicable in the present case. In this case reassessment order has been passed and thereafter form No.10 was filed. In the instant case, assessment order had already been passed and thereafter Form No.10 was filed. 14. Accordingly, in view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No costs.