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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) rejected these applications citing failure to provide required details and information.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner ought to have provided adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case. Therefore, the orders of the Commissioner were set aside on the grounds of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the Commissioner properly followed the principles of natural justice while rejecting the applications for registration and approval without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
12A(i)(ac)(iii), 80G(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, F: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
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 05.01.2026 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 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 1 ITA No.- 987 & 988/Del/2026 Founda�on For Compu�ng Educa�on in India Since common issues are involved in both the appeals, the same are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
None represented the assessee therefore we decided to hear the appeals ex- parte with the assistance of the ld. DR. At the outset, the ld. DR pointed out that the assessee has taken a ground in both the appeals that the ld. CIT(E) had rejected the applications of the assessee for registration under section 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, without giving proper notice or following principles of natural justice. The ld. DR 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. 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) rejecting the respective applications of the assessee for registration under section 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 2
ITA No.- 987 & 988/Del/2026 Founda�on For Compu�ng Educa�on in India 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 4. purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.03.2026.