KNOWLEDGE HUB FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 July 2025AY 2023-24Bench: 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 orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after giving the Assessee an opportunity of being heard and to produce documents.

What were the facts?

The Assessee filed applications for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected these applications ex-parte without verifying documents or providing an opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the applications for registration and approval ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

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

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri SudeshGarg, &Ms.BahvyaGarg, Advs
Hearing: 07/07/2025Pronounced: 09/07/2025

Knowledge Hub Foundation Vs Commissioner of Income 1012, 10th Floor, Surya Kiran Tax, Exemption, Building, KG Marg, New Delhi Delhi PAN: AAETK3746K Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri SudeshGarg, &Ms.BahvyaGarg, Advs Revenue by Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing 07/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 09/07/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: These two appeals are filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-, Chandigarh (‘Ld.

CIT(E)’ for short) dated 17/03/2023 wherein the applications filed by the Assessee for grant of registration u/s 12A(l)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) and in Form 10AB for approval under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Actwere rejected.

2.

The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the orders impugned have been passed ex-parte, wherein Ld. CIT(E)has not verified the documents produced by the Appellant and without providing opportunity to the appellant to produce further documents and submissions the orders impugned has been passed. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeals.

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 parties and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the orders impugned, the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the applications for want of documents to substantiate the claim of the Appellant and the Appellant has not been heard before passing the orders impugned. Considering the above facts and circumstances, 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 →