MATA SITA VEDIC KANYA GURUKUL,DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1560/DEL/2025Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2025-26Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT, SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)6 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons reasonable. It held that the CIT(E) decided the issue without proper appreciation of facts and directed the CIT(E) to decide the issues afresh after affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee applied for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The founder trustee was suffering from cancer, leading to a delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(E) rejected the application without appreciating the facts.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) rightly rejected the registration application without proper appreciation of facts and opportunity to the assessee. Whether the delay in filing the appeal was to be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Ms. Astha Gupta, CA
For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.05.2025Pronounced: 16.05.2025

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld.

CIT(E), New Delhi dated 12.12.2024 for A.Y 2025-26.

2.

At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the application for grant of registration u/s 12A(1)ac(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short]. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the founder trustee was suffering from cancer and hence she could not tend to the trust matters.

The ld. counsel for the assessee prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

3.

Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

4.

The reasons stated by the ld. counsel for the assessee for delay in filing the appeal seem to be reasonable. Accordingly, we condone the delay.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the ld. CIT(E) has decided the issue without appreciation of facts. We are of the considered view that the assessee has reasonable cause for not participating before the ld. CIT(E).

5. In view of the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the considered view that the matter be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) to decide the issues afresh after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

The ld. CIT(E) is directed to decide the issues afresh after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The assessee is also directed to provide necessary information /documents as required by the authorities. allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 16.05.2025.

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 →