THE REPORTERS COLLECTIVE ,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT, DELHI

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi, [‘Ld. CIT(E)’ for short] dated 27/01/2025.

Brief facts of the case are that, the Appellant who has obtained provisional registration under sub Clause (vii) of Clause (ac) of sub Section (i) of Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) for the period Assessment Year 2022-23 to 2024-2025, filed anapplication on 28/07/2024 in Form No. 10AB for regular registration under Section12A (1)(ac) (iii) of the Act. The said application has been rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) vide order dated 27/01/2025 on the ground that ‘the applicant has failed to justify as to how the activities of the appellant are beneficial for public at large’ and Applicant remained silent to the show cause that, ‘why the activity of the appellant may not be considered as commercial in nature and application may not be rejected’.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E) dated 27/01/2025, the Assessee preferred a WP(C) 1603/2025, CM APPL. 7803/2025 and CM APPL. 7804/2025 before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has committed error in rejecting the application without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. Further submitted that no notice was served on the appellant and the appellant has been conducting charitable activities strictly in accordance with its objects and complied with all the requirement under law for achieving objects for grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act. Thus, submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) committed error in rejecting the application of the appellant, therefore, sought for allowing the Appeal.

Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It can be seen form the order impugned, the Ld. CIT(E) has dismissed the appeal on the ground that ‘the applicant has failed to justify as to how the activities of the appellant are beneficial for public at large and Applicant remained silent to the show cause that, ‘why the activity of the appellant may not be considered as commercial in nature and application may not be rejected’.

It is the specific case of the Appellant that before passing the order impugned no notice has been issued to prove that the Appellant is indeed conducting charitable activities strictly in accordance with its objects and complied with all the requirement under law for achieving objects for grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act.

Considering the fact that the Appellant is claimed to be conducting charitable activities, the Ld. CIT(E) should have provided opportunity of being heard to substantiate the claim of the Appellant and ought to have decided the application on its merit after examining the documents/submissions of the Appellant. Thus, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E) and remand the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to decide the application afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. The Assessee is also at liberty to produce any document to substantiate its claim.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.