GRAM SWAWLAMBI SWADESHI SWARAJ FOUNDATION (G3S FOUNDATION),NEW DELHI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 528/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 August 2025Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that communication gaps could not be ruled out and, in the larger interest of justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with three opportunities of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's twin appeals arose from the CIT(E)'s orders. The assessee claimed communication gaps at various levels prevented them from presenting all facts and pleaded for the case to be restored to the CIT(E).

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(E) due to alleged communication gaps and for a fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Adv. Ms. Aastha Sharma, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 06.08.2025Pronounced: 06.08.2025

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s twin appeals & 529/Del/2025 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [in short, the “CIT(E)”], Delhi’s orders, both dated 20.12.2024 having DIN and Notice nos. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1071397545 (1) and ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1071397618(1), involving proceedings under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Learned counsel submits that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not appear to plead and prove all the relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings and therefore, larger interest of justice would be met, in case, the matter may be restored back to the CIT(E). The Revenue vehemently support the learned lower authorities action making addition(s) herein on merits.

3.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings all along and the department’s foregoing vehement submissions. It is noticed from a perusal of the learned CIT(E)’s detailed discussion that the assessee was required to submit all the details of it’s objects and activities undertaken; as the case may be, which couldn’t be complied with. This is what led the learned CIT(E) to proceed ex-parte against the assessee. Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some

More judgments on Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)

All 150 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →