Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed applications for registration under section 12A(i)(ac)(iii) and approval under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected these applications citing the assessee's failure to provide required details.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to consider the submissions made by the assessee before rejecting the applications. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the orders were set aside for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) properly considered the assessee's submissions before rejecting the applications for registration and approval, and whether adequate opportunity to be heard was provided.
Sections Cited
12A(i)(ac)(iii), 80G(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, E: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.- 2756 & 2729/Del/2026 [Assessment Year: 2026-27] Shrimad Rajchandra Mission, CIT(E), The Kendra, Civic Centre, 76, Tarun Enclave, Vs New Delhi-110002. Pitampura, Delhi-110034. PAN- AAJTS8863Q Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Pramod Jain, CA & Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv. Revenue by Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.03.2026 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM:
These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the two separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(E)] both dated 15.03.2026 rejecting the respective applications filed by the assessee for registration under section 12A(i)(ac)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and for grant of approval under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act. Since common issues are involved in both 1 ITA No.- 2756 & 2729/Del/2026 Shrimad Rajchandra Mission-The Kendra the appeals, the same are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had filed its submissions before the Ld. CIT(E) which were not considered by the Ld. CIT(E) before rejecting the respective applications filed by the assessee. In this regard, the assessee filed the e- proceedings response acknowledgment in support of its claim and submitted that the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(E) rejecting the applications of the assessee u/s 12A / 80G of the Act be set aside and restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The ld. DR in all fairness did not raise any serious objection in setting aside these two appeals for a fresh adjudication by the Ld. CIT(E).
We find that the ld. CIT(E) rejected both the above applications on the ground that the assessee had failed to file details / information required by the notices issued to the assessee in support of the genuineness of the activities, charitable objects and commencements of the activities. However, we observe that the submission filed by the assessee were not considered by the Ld. CIT(E) before passing the respective orders. Therefore, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(E) should have given adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain its case. We therefore, in the interest of the principle of natural justice, set-aside both the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(E) regarding the respective applications of the assessee for registration under section 2 ITA No.- 2756 & 2729/Del/2026 Shrimad Rajchandra Mission-The Kendra 12A(i)(ac)(iii) of the Act and for grant of approval under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act, to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for afresh adjudication, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to participate and furnish evidences/documents as and when required by the Ld. CIT(E).
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.03.2026.