SRI KRISHNA CHAITANYA ANTARANG RAS ASWADAN MANDIR,DELHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) DELHI, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(E) had proceeded ex-parte, and there might have been communication gaps. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee three opportunities to present their case and evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal arose from an order by the CIT(Exemption) that denied the claim for registration as a charitable trust due to a lack of supportive evidence. The appeal was proceeded ex-parte as the assessee did not appear. The Revenue argued for dismissal as no explanation or evidence was provided by the assessee.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication when it was proceeded ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of evidence?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2024-25, arises against the CIT(Exemption), Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1071619424(1) dated 27.12.2024, in proceedings u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(E)’s detailed discussion has proceeded ex- parte against the assessee thereby declining it’s claim of registration as a charitable trust for want of necessary supportive evidence.
Sri Krishna Chaitanya Antarang Ras Aswadan Mandir 4. Mr. Dayainder Singh Sidhu vehemently argues during the course of hearing in support of the CIT(E)’s findings that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting it’s case and therefore, it’s instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.
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 the arguing counsel 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 12AA
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2448/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2447/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Sri Jawahar Education Trust, Chamarajanagar vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 1…ITA 1735/BANG/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), MohaliITA 636/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 635/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026