LORD SHIVA GAUSHALA SAMITI,PANIPAT vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 866/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2025-263 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to file the necessary evidence before the Ld. CIT(E) to establish the genuineness of its activities. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to provide reasonable opportunities of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had repeatedly asked for details, which the assessee failed to provide, leading to the denial of registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and consequently under Section 80G. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes with these directions. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Lord Shiva Gaushala Samiti, filed applications for registration under Section 12AB and deduction under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2025-26. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh (CIT(E)), rejected both applications. The CIT(E) cited the assessee's failure to provide requested details, substantiate the genuineness of its activities, charitable objects, and commencement of operations. The assessee appealed these rejections to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the rejection of the assessee's application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the CIT(E) was justified, considering the assessee's failure to provide requested details and substantiate its activities and objects. Assessee's contention: The assessee acknowledged its inability to file the requisite details before the CIT(E) but requested one more opportunity to present its case and submit documentary evidence. Revenue's contention: The Ld. CIT DR supported the order of the CIT(E) and requested its confirmation. 2. Whether the rejection of the assessee's application for deduction under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the CIT(E) was justified, given that it was consequential to the rejection of the Section 12AB registration. Assessee's contention: (Implicitly, as it was linked to the 12AB rejection, the assessee would argue for its allowance if 12AB was granted or if a fresh opportunity was given). Revenue's contention: The Ld. CIT DR supported the order of the CIT(E) and requested its confirmation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kaushik, Adv. &, Shri Himanshu Sharma, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Hearing: 14.05.2025Pronounced: 14.05.2025

& 866/Del/2025 [Assessment Year : 2025-26] Lord Shiva Gaushala Samiti, vs CIT(Exemption), Village-Shahpur, Gohana Chandigarh. Road, Shahpur, Haryana-132107. PAN–AAAAL7533J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Amit Kaushik, Adv. & Shri Himanshu Sharma, Adv. Respondent by Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR Date of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 14.05.2025 ORDER

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :

1.

The captioned appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh (“the Ld. CIT(E)”) dated 14.12.2024 for the Assessment Year 2025-26, whereby application of the assessee for grant of registration u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act,1961 (“the Act”) was rejected. Further, the application for deduction u/s 80G of the Act was also rejected.

2.

In both appeals, the assessee has challenged the action of Ld. CIT(E) for rejecting the application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and 80G of the Act.

3.

From the order of Ld. CIT(E), it is seen that the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) as the assessee has failed to provide the details as sought for time to time and thus, the Ld. CIT(E) was of the opinion that the assessee has failed to substantiate the genuineness of its activity, charitable objects and commencing of the activities. Since the registration u/s 12AB was rejected, application for registration u/s 80G was also rejected.

4.

Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee though was not able to file the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(E). However, he requested that assessee may be granted one more opportunity to represent its case before the Ld. CIT(E) to file the documentary evidences as required by Ld. CIT(E).

5.

On the other hand, the Ld. CIT DR supported the orders of Ld. CIT(E) and requested for the confirmation of the same.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and from the perusal of the orders of Ld. CIT(E). It is seen that the Ld. CIT(E) on various occasions asked the assessee to file the requisite details from time to time. However, the assessee has failed to file any such information before the Ld. CIT(E), thus, the CIT(E) has denied the registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act as well application for registration u/s 80G was also rejected. 7. Under these facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunities of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file the necessary evidences before the Ld. CIT(E) in order to establish the genuineness of its activity. With these directions, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 14.05.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANISH AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:-21.05.2025 *Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S*

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →