Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against orders of the CIT(Exemptions) rejecting their applications for registration u/s 12AA and 80G. The appeals were filed with a delay which was condoned by the Tribunal. The CIT(Exemptions) rejected the 12AA registration for non-submission of evidence and consequently denied 80G relief.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have submitted all relevant evidence and that the CIT(Exemptions) had not adjudicated the matter on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals back to the Commissioner (Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Exemptions) failed to adjudicate the assessee's applications for registration on merits, and whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned.
Sections Cited
12AA, 80G, 12AB
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
O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M: These assessee’s twin appeals in & 2806/Del/2025 arise against Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh’s as many DINs & Order Nos. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1067748577(1) & ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1067748298(1), both dated 20.08.2024, in proceedings u/s 12AA and 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s instant twin appeals suffer from delay of 174 days and 179 days, respectively. Considering the averments made in it’s respective condonation applications explaining the & 2806/Del/2025 corresponding circumstances beyond control for delay in filing the instnt appeals, to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits' as envisaged in Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & another (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), we condone the respective delay in filing the instant appeals and the appeals are taken up for adjudication on merits after hearing the respective Authorized representatives of the parties.
It next emerges from a combined perusal of these case files that the CIT(Exemptions) has firstly rejected the assessee’s Section 12AA registration quoting its failure to file all of its supportive evidence despite affording various opportunities of hearing subject matter of adjudication in . He further observes in Section 80G impugned order under challenge in that once there is no Section 12AB registration herein, it is not entitled for consequential 80G relief as well. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and Revenue’s vehement submissions reiterating their respective stands. Mr. Sehgal more particularly submits that the assessee had filed its detailed and voluminous supportive evidence which has not been considered on merits. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that possibility of some communication gap in such instances cannot be altogether ruled out. This indeed coupled with the fact that there is no adjudication in the CIT(Exemption)’s order on merits despite the fact that the assessee had filed all its relevant information prescribed in the registration application(s). We, thus deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s twin appeals back to the Commissioner (Exemptions) for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.
& 2806/Del/2025 6. These assessee’s twin appeals being & 2806/Del/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in open court on 04.08.2025.