NETWORK OF ORGANISATIONS FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMUNICATION,DELHI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, G: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.- 1495/Del/2026 [Assessment Year: -] ITA No.- 1496/Del/2026 [Assessment Year: -] Network of Organisations for Commissioner of Income Tax Science and Technology (Exemption), Communication, First Floor, E-56, Vs Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Samaspur Road, Gali No. 1, Parpat Delhi-110002. Ganj, Delhi-110091. PAN- AACAN9687R Assessee Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Lalit Mohan Jindal, IT(DR) Date of Hearing 03.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement 03.08.2026 ORDER Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders both dated 16.12.2025 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(E)].

ITA No.- 1495 and 1496/Del/2026 Network of Organisations for Science and Technology Communication

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in rejecting exemption u/s 80G(5) for no solid reason. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in concluding that the appellant did not comply with notices, while in fact the appellant had sought adjournments and the CIT(A) had passed rejection orders while there was still time to respond. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) failed to understand appreciate that the appellant had reasonable cause to seek adjournments. 4. The Commissioner of Income tax (Exemptions) erred in not considering the fact that the appellant was an organization promoting science and Technology and that it had been enjoying exemption u/s 80G right from its inception in the year 1991 and that it was necessary for the organization as it works with grants from the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India. 5 The commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) erred in not considering the past record of the organization where it had been doing good work in the field of science and technology. 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) should have considered that the appellant organization has been doing genuine work and rejection of 80G (5) to a genuine Organisation makes it incapable of functioning and that hampers the spirit in which NGOs work. He should have noted that this rejection works against national good. 7. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other 8 That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal..”

2.1 The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal (ITA No.-1496 /Del/2026):

ITA No.- 1495 and 1496/Del/2026 Network of Organisations for Science and Technology Communication “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in rejecting the registration u/s12AA for no solid reason. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in concluding that the appellant did not comply with notices, while in fact the appellant had sought adjournments and the CIT(A) had passed rejection orders while there was still time to respond. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) failed to understand appreciate that the appellant had reasonable cause to seek adjournments. 4. The Commissioner of Income tax (Exemptions) erred in not considering the fact that the appellant was an organization promoting science and Technology and that it had been registered u/s 12A right from its inception in the year 1991 by eminent scientist and that there was never any rejection till now. 5. The commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) erred in not considering the past record of the organization where it had been doing good work in the field of science and technology. 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) should have considered that the appellant organization has been doing genuine work and rejection of registration to a genuine Organisation makes it incapable of functioning and that hampers the spirit in which NGOs work. He should have noted that this rejection works against national good. 7. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other 8 That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” 2.2. As common facts are involved in both the appeals, these are being disposed off by a common order. ITA No.1496/Del/2026 pertaining to rejection of registration u/s 12A is taken up as the lead case. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee filed an application dated 21.08.2025 in Form 10AB for approval u/s 12A (1)(ac)(ii) of the Act. A questionnaire was issued by the CIT(E) on 7.11.2025 seeking certain details/Accounts/Clarifications from the assessee. As no compliance was made by the assessee to the notices issued, the 3

ITA No.- 1495 and 1496/Del/2026 Network of Organisations for Science and Technology Communication application was rejected by the CIT(E ) vide order dated 16.12.2025. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Ld. DR has been heard and material placed on record has been considered. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and made requisite compliance before the CIT(E). In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.1496/Del/2026 5. As facts and circumstances/ relating to rejection of application for approval u/s 80G are identical, above decision will apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal also. 6. In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 03.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [RENU JAUHRI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 07.08.2026. Pooja/PK, Sr. PS.

ITA No.- 1495 and 1496/Del/2026 Network of Organisations for Science and Technology Communication Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi