SHAAGIRD FOUNDATION,DELHI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4559/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 July 20263 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It found that the assessee's right to natural justice was violated as the impugned order was passed without adequate opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the rejection of its applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G. There was a significant delay of 541 days in filing these appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied natural justice by the CIT(E) in passing an ex-parte order without providing an adequate opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

Pronounced: 08.07.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िद�ी पीठ�, नई िद�ी INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES, ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.4558 & 4559/DEL/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: NA) SHAAGIRD FOUNDATION CIT (EXEMPTION) D-247/248 SECOND FLOOR, LEFT MINTO ROAD CIVIC CENTRE SIDE KH NO 338/2, ABUL FAZAL NEW DELHI-110002, DELHI ENCLAVE-I JAMIA NAGAR Vs. OKHLA, SOUTH DELHI-110025, NEW DELHI-110025, DELHI अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: ABJCS7197K

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: NONE ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Sh Rajore Satish Chandra Ramsevak,CIT DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 25.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 08.07.2026 ORDER PER BENCH

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(E)] both dated 21.08.2024 passed under section 12AB/(1)(b)(ii) and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee was called absent.

ITA Nos.4558 & 4559/DEL/2026 SHAAGIRD FOUNDATION

3.

The appeal of the assessee vide ITA No.4559/Del/2026 is regarding the rejection of its request filed under section 80G(5)(ii) of the Act. The appeal of the assessee vide ITA No.4558/Del/2026 is regarding the rejection of its request filed under section 12AB(I)(b)(ii) of the Act. As both the appeals are of the same assessee concerning common issues of rejection of its application under section 12A and 80G, they were heard together and for the purposes of convenience, adjudicated by this common order.

4.

At the outset, we have noted that the Registry has identified the delay of 541 days in this case for filing of appeals. Justifying the delay, the appellant had submitted that due to bona fide and unavoidable reasons the appeal could not file in time. It was submitted that the appellant was ill-advised by his tax professionals regarding the course of action after the rejection of its petitions contributing the delay. All these factors contributed to the above-mentioned delays. Thus, it was argued that the delay is not intentional. We are conscious that no litigant gains by delay its matter. The Ld. DR did not seriously object to the condonation of delay. Delay of 541 days in filing of these assessee’s appeal are condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Hon’ble Apex court decision in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

5.

The ld. DR while relying upon the order of the lower authorities, took us through the factual matrix of the case. We have noted that the rights of natural justice of the assessee have been violated in as much as the impugned order u/s

Page 2 of 3

ITA Nos.4558 & 4559/DEL/2026 SHAAGIRD FOUNDATION

12A dated 18.03.2026 has been passed without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. The fact of ex-parte order of CIT(E) is evident from the conclusion drawn by him in his order to reject assessee’s application on premise of non- submission of required documents. We are conscious that no litigant gains by non- prosecution of its case. In the interest of justice, we remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for re-adjudication de novo, in accordance with law and by passing a speaking order. The assessee shall be bounden to comply with all the statutory notices and any non-compliance would be adversely viewed. Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No.4558/Del/2026 and vide ITA No. 4559/Del/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

Finally, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08th July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 08.07.2026 Shekhar Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →