SARBATI DEVI EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION,DELHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 31/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 July 2025Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to decide the applications after hearing the Appellant and allowing them to produce documents.

What were the facts?

The Assessee's application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval u/s 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act was rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) for want of documents. The Appellant did not appear before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of the application for registration and approval by the Ld. CIT(E) without providing an opportunity of being heard was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii),Section 80G(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Hearing: 08/07/2025Pronounced: 16/07/2025

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 30/DEL/2025
I.T.A. No. 31/DEL/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

ORDER

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

1.

The captioned Appeals are filed by the Appellant against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-, Delhi (‘Ld.

CIT(E)’ for short) dated 20/12/2024 wherein the application filed by the Assessee for grant of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) and the approval under Section 80G(5)of the Act were rejected.

2.

None appeared for the Appellant. Considering the issue involved in the present Appeals, we deem it fit to decide the Appeals on hearing the Ld. Department's Representative and perusing the material available on record.

3.

The Ld. Department's Representative vehemently submitted that the appellant has failed to substantiate the claim in support of the applications filed by the Appellant. Thus, relying on the orders of the Lower Authority, sought for dismissal of the Appeals.

4.

We have heard the Ld. Department's Representative perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the orders impugned, the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application for want of documents to substantiate the claim of the Appellant and the Appellant has not been heard before passing the orders impugned.

Thus, we set aside the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and remand the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to decide the applications afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. The Appellant is also at liberty to produce any/all documents in support of its claim.

5.

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)

All 1,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →