ICSI INTERNATIONAL ADR CENTRE,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD 1(2), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7875/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 July 2026AY 2023-244 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E), granting the assessee one final opportunity to substantiate its claim with relevant documents and evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee applied for registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected the application, citing a lack of evidence to prove the genuineness of the activities and a potential fee-for-service model.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration and approval without appreciating the evidence and providing a proper opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”, DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL&

For Respondent: Ms. Lalita Kumar, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 29/06/2026Pronounced: 08/07/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, DELHI

BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.7875/DEL/2025 & ITA No. 7876/Del/2025 Assessment Year ---- ICSI INTERNATIONAL ADR Vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), CENTRE, WARRD 1(2), ICSI HOUSE, DELHI 22, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110 003 [PAN No. AAGC18284B] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by Sh. Shridhar Erode, Adv. Respondent by Ms. Lalita Kumar, CIT(DR)

Date of hearing: 29/06/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 08/07/2026 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT : These appeals by the assessee are directed against the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(E)”] passed

u/s. 12AA and u/s. 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as Act). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 7875/Del/2025 : 1. That the CIT(E), Delhi has erred in law and on facts by rejecting the application filed in Form No. 10AB of the Act without appreciating the replies and documentary evidence filed to prove the genuineness of activities filed during the course of proceedings. 2. That the Ld.CIT(A) has wrongly presumed that the appellant operates on a fee-for-service basis merely because the internal rules / by laws provide for a fee structure. The Ld. CIT(E) has failed to appreciate that such fee structure is only indicative and intended to cover basic administrative costs, and no fees were ever charged as the trust has only recently commenced its operations. Such presumption is arbitrary, contrary to law and unsustainable for the purpose of rejection of Form 10AB. 3. That, the CIT(E) has failed to grant proper opportunity of being heard and has wrongly rejected the application filed in Form NO. 10AB for granting registration u/s. 12A of the I.T . Act. 4. That the order passed by the CIT(E) is against the principles of natural justice.

3.

The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application of the applicant for registration. The Ld. CIT(E) rejected the registration application by observing as under :- “7. For the application filed u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(ii)/(iii)/(iv)/(v) and (vi-B), where activities of institution has already commenced before seeking approval, for such genuineness of actual activities undertaken by the applicant vis a vis a the intended activities mentioned in its objects. To do so, it is important that the applicant provides list of beneficiaries if applicable etc. In absence of same genuineness of its activities cannot be ascertained. Since the applicant has not submitted the above details required for verifying the genuineness of the activities, the applicant has failed to satisfy the genuineness of charitable nature of its activities. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, since the applicant has not carried out any charitable activity coupled with the fact that it intends to works on fee for service model and does not impart any charitable activity in any form for general public at large, therefore, the conditions for grant of registration are not satisfied and hence the application filed in Form 10AB for grant of registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) is hereby rejected and provisional registration issued on 4.4.2023 vide URN AAGCI8284BE20221 for the period from AY 2023-24 to 2-025-26 is cancelled.”

4.

The Ld. DR has submitted that the Ld. AR has failed to provide the relevant documents before the Ld. CIT(E), hence, the application was rightly rejected. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(E) rejected the registration application in the absence of relevant documents and as a result thereof the exemption application under 80G of the Act was also rejected by the CIT(E). Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the

interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to restore the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) in both the captioned appeals, with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide the issue as per facts and law. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(E) and co-operate in the proceedings by furnishing all the relevant documents/evidences. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 08.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

(MANISH AGARWAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT SR BHATNAGAR Date: 08.07.2026 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) ` 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI

More judgments on Section 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →