SHRI HARIANA KURUKSHETRA GAUSHALA,HARYANA vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS, ROHTAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2738/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 July 2026AY 2026-274 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(E), granting one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and furnish all relevant documents. The CIT(E) was directed to decide the issue afresh.

What were the facts?

The assessee applied for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected these applications due to non-prosecution and lack of requisite documents from the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G was justified due to the assessee's failure to provide documents and prosecute the case.

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 BENCH “E”, DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL&

For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 07/07/2026Pronounced: 07/07/2026

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

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

ITA No. 2747/DEL/2026 & ITA No. 2738/Del/2026 Assessment Year ---- SHRI HARIANA KURUKSHETRA Vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), GAUSHALA, ROHTAK, LAJPAT RAI MARKET, PUL ZILA PARISHAD TALIYAN, HISAR, BUILDING, ROHTAK, HARYANA-125001 HARYANA-124001 [PAN No. AAATG5717C] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by Sh. Samyak Jain, Adv. Respondent by Ms. Runi Pal, CIT(DR)

Date of hearing: 07/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 07/07/2026 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT : These appeals by the assessee are directed against the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh [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. 2747/Del/2026 : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(E) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the application for registration under section 12A of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(E) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the application of the appellant in violating principle of natural justice without providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity to submit the requisite details and documents. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(E) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the application for registration under section 12AB of the Act despite the fact that the assessee is having objects which are charitable in nature and the activities of the assessee society are genuine. 3. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application of the applicant for registration u/s. 12AB on account of non-prosecution on the part of the assessee and in the absence of requisite submissions by the applicant. He further submitted that Ld. CIT(E) also rejected the approval u/s. 80G of the Act in the absence of registration u/s. 12AB of the Act.

4.

The Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and has submitted that the Ld. AR has failed to provide the relevant documents before the Ld. CIT(E), hence, the applications were rightly rejected by the Ld. CIT(E). 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material

available on record. The Ld.CIT(E) rejected the registration

application u/s. 12AB of the Act on account of non-prosecution

on the part of the assessee and in the absence of relevant

documents. We further note that Ld. CIT(E) also rejected the

approval u/s. 80G of the Act as registration u/s. 12AB was not

granted 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 in both the appeals 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 07.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT SR BHATNAGAR Date: 07.07.2026 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) ` 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →