DELHI POLICE MARTYRS FUND,DELHI vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION 1(3), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5320/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 August 2026AY 2026-274 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessees were not given a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matters were set aside to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration with a direction to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessees applied for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and approval under Section 80G(5)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The applications were dismissed by the CIT(E) due to alleged non-furnishing of additional details and clarifications by the assessees.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) properly considered the applications and provided adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessees before rejecting them for registration and approval.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii),Section 80G(5)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: MS MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mahajan, CIT (DR)
Hearing: 23/06/2026Pronounced: 06/08/2026

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA Nos. 5317/Del/2026
ITA Nos. 5319/Del/2026
ITA Nos. 5321/Del/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA Nos. 5317/Del/2026 (A.Y 2026-27) Delhi Police Education Vs. DCIT Fund, 8th Floor, MSO Circle Exemption 1(1), Building, Delhi Police Head Delhi Quarters I P Estate, Delhi- 110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AACAD8780F ITA No. 5318/Del/2026 (A.Y 2026-27) ITA Nos. 5319/Del/2026 (A.Y 2026-27) Delhi Police Welfare Society, Vs. DCIT 6th Floor, MSO Building, Circle Exemption 1(1), Delhi Police Head Quarters Delhi I P Estate, Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABAD7834R ITA No. 5320/Del/2026 (A.Y 2026-27) ITA Nos. 5321/Del/2026 (A.Y 2026-27) Delhi Police Martyr’s Fund, Vs. ITO MSO Building, Delhi Police Ward Exemption 1(3), Head Quarters I P Estate, Delhi Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABAD4893J Assessee by : Sh. Sandeep Goel, Adv Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Mahajan, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing 23/06/2026 Date of pronouncement 06/08/2026

2 ITA Nos. 5317 to 5321/Del/2026 Delhi Police Education Fund Vs. DCIT

O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, J. M.: The bunch of the Appeals filed by different Assessee’s are arising

out of the orders issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax,

(Exemption) (Ld. (CIT(E)’ for short)-Delhi whereby and whereudner the

applications in the Form 10AB for registration under Section

12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) and/or

applications seeking regular approval under Section 80G(5) (ii)

preferred by the Assessees stood dismissed.

2.

Having regard to the identical question of law and fact involved

in the matters these are heard analogously and are being disposed of

by a common order for the sake of convenience.

2.

It is the case of the Revenue that though the Assessees were given

opportunity to file the additional details/clarification/documents, the

same was not furnished by the Assessees. Further that since the

documents/details sought for were also not attached with Form No.

10AB, necessary verification in support of the genuineness of the

activities, charitable objects and commencement of the activities could

not be completed and, therefore, the applications for grant of

registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) were rejected. Similarly

applications for grant of approval under Section 80G(5) stood rejected.

3 ITA Nos. 5317 to 5321/Del/2026 Delhi Police Education Fund Vs. DCIT

It is the case of the Assessees that though the most of the relevant

documents were furnished before the authorities below, the same were

not considered in its proper perspective by the Ld. CIT(E) and without

giving further opportunity of being heard to the respective assessees,

the applications stood rejected.

3.

Under these facts and circumstances of the matter, the Ld.

Counsel appearing for the Assessees submitted before us that since

the Assessees were not given proper opportunity of being heard to

represent their cases before the Ld. CIT(E) effectively, the matters be

sent to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for consideration of the same afresh;

such prayer was not objected by the Ld. DR with all his fairness.

4.

Having heard the Ld. Counsels appearing for the parties and

having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matters in order to

prevent the miscarriage of justice, we, therefore, set aside the issues to

the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction upon him to grant reasonable

opportunity of being heard to the Assessees while considering their

case effectively. The Assessees are further directed to furnish all the

relevant details as sought for by the Ld. CIT(E). Upon considering the

evidences on record and any further evidence which the Assessees

may choose to file during the course of hearing, the Ld. CIT(E) is

directed to dispose of the applications as above by passing speaking

orders. We also make it clear that in the event the Assessees do not

4 ITA Nos. 5317 to 5321/Del/2026 Delhi Police Education Fund Vs. DCIT

cooperate with the Ld. CIT(E), the said authority would be at liberty to

proceed and finalize the issues strictly in accordance with law.

5.

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee’s are allowed for

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 06/08/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 06/08/2026 R. Naheed, Sr PS Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)

All 679 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →