VARDHMAN SATHANAKWASI JAIN MAHASANGH DELHI PRADESH,GHAZIABAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the ex-parte nature of the CIT(E)'s order and potential communication gaps, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against an order by the CIT(Exemption) that declined its claim for section 80G registration. The CIT(E) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(E) was justified in proceeding ex-parte and denying 80G registration without proper adjudication, and if the appeal should be restored for fresh consideration.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji3,926 citing167 ITR 471 · 1987 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal arises against the CIT(Exemption), Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024- 25/1070254108(1) dated 11.11.2024, in proceedings u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Delay of 60 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(E)’s detailed discussion has quoted the assessee’s failure in filing all the relevant details thereby
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stand and are of the considered view that since the CIT(E) has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, possibility of some communication gaps between the taxpayer and it’s arguing counsel/auditor could not be altogether ruled out.
Faced with this situation and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the learned CIT(E) for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at it’s own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
More judgments on Section 80G
- Savan Dayalal Ladani, Rajkot vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1)…ITA 575/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Pareshbhai Savjibhai Khunt, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(2)(3), RajkotITA 842/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 777/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 776/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026