CARE INDIA SOLUTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had furnished details to the AO, who denied the expenses without referring to them. The CIT(A)'s orders were also found to be non-speaking. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a non-profit organization registered under sections 12A and 80G, claimed certain expenses which the AO treated as unascertained liabilities, denying deduction under Section 11. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeals for non-compliance and non-prosecution.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO and CIT(A) correctly denied deductions for expenses claimed by a non-profit organization without proper consideration of submitted details, and if the CIT(A)'s orders were non-speaking.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.6677 to 6678/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19]
Care India Solutions for Vs. DCIT Sustainable Development Central Circle – 14 20, Ground Floor, Okhla Delhi Phase-III, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110020 PAN No.AADCC3639H Appellant Respondent
Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 02.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 29.04.2026
ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.
These two appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Ld. CIT(A), Delhi-26 dated 13.08.2025
and 14.08.2025 for the A.Ys. 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively in sustaining the addition made by the AO.
Inspite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was moved. Therefore, these two appeals are disposed of after hearing the Ld. DR.
The assessee is a non profit organization and registered u/s.12A of the Act as well as 80G of the Act. The AO in the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y.2017-18 noticed that assessee has claimed certain expenses which are in the nature of provision for leave encashment, provision for gratuity, leave equalization reserve, prior period expenses and expenses in foreign currency and required the assessee to submit the details. However, it appears that the assessee did not furnish justification for claiming such expenses. Thus, the AO treated these expenses as unascertained liabilities and denied deduction u/s.11 of the Act.
The assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non compliance. We observed from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee requested for adjournment on two occasions. By and large the appeal of the assessee was dismissed for non prosecution by Ld. CIT(A).
On perusal of the statement of facts filed by the assessee before the Tribunal we observed that the assessee furnished substantial details on 23.12.2019 and the remaining details was furnished on 24.12.2019 and 26.12.2019 as called for by the AO. However, the AO without even referring to the details and submissions furnished by the assessee denied the expenses holding them as unascertained liabilities.
Similarly in A.Y.2018-19 we observed that the claim for deduction u/s.11 of the Act was denied on various administrative expenses and fund rising expenses claimed by the assessee, observing that these expenses were not incurred for charitable purpose. The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the order of the AO in denying exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. In the statement of facts filed by the assessee it is the contention of the assessee that various details and explanations called for by the AO were duly complied with. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is also of non speaking order except placing reliance on the order of the AO.
In the circumstances in the interest of justice both these appeal are restored to the file of the AO for denovo adjudication of the issues in these appeals. Needless to say that the AO shall provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to file necessary details and submissions to prove the contentions of the assessee.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SANJAY AWASTHI] [C.N. PRASAD] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.04.2026
NEHA , Sr.P.S.* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
More judgments on Section 11
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Mata Lachmi Rotary Charitable Society… vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward - 1…ITA 310/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 531/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 530/NAG/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026