SHRI MAHARAJA AGGARSAIN PARAKARTIK CHIKITSA & YOG PEETH,HARYANA vs. EXEMPTIONS WARD ROHTAK, HARYANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1022/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 June 2026AY 2027-283 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the impugned orders were passed ex parte and that the CIT(E) failed to consider relevant facts. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's applications for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and Section 80G of the Income Tax Act were rejected by the CIT(E). The assessee contended that they were not provided with adequate opportunity to present their case and documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications for registration without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Whether the rejection of the Section 80G application was justified solely on the basis of the rejection of the Section 12AB application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “H” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Adv. (Virtual)
For Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, CIT DR
Hearing: 29.06.2026

ITA Nos. 1022 & 1023/Del/2026 SHRI MAHARAJA AGGARSAIN PARAKARTIK CHIKITSA & YOG PEETH, HARYANA IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1022 & 1023/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2027-28 SHRI MAHARAJA AGGARSAIN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PARAKARTIK CHIKITSA & YOG PEETH, (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH, Shri Yukav Sahatiya Sadan Janta Exemptions Ward Rohtak, Bhawan Road, Sirsa, Haryana 125055. Zila Parishad Building, Rohtak, PAN No. AAKTS3295B Haryana 124001. Appellant Respondent Assessee by Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Adv. (Virtual) Revenue by Shri Bhopal Singh, CIT DR Date of hearing: 29.06.2026 Pronouncement on 29.06.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This is a batch of two appeals pertaining to the same assessee, which for the sake of convenience is being disposed of through a single order. It is seen that ITA No.1023 pertains to an order rejecting the application for registration filed by the assessee u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”). It is further seen that in this case, as recorded on pages 5 to 6 of the impugned order, the assessee could not comply to the terms of notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E)-Chandigarh and thereafter an adverse view was taken in an ex parte manner, vide order dated 12.11.2025. The matter in ITA No.1022 pertains to an application for registration u/s 80G of the Act, which has

ITA Nos. 1022 & 1023/Del/2026 SHRI MAHARAJA AGGARSAIN PARAKARTIK CHIKITSA & YOG PEETH, HARYANA been rejected on the ground that the application u/s 12AB of the Act was already rejected.

2.

The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging the action of Ld. CIT(E) in both the matters and it is seen that the denial of opportunity has been presented as the major grievance.

3.

Before us the Ld. AR pointed out that inadequate opportunity was provided and therefore the assessee could not present the necessary documents etc. before the Ld. CIT(E). It was the prayer that this matter may be remanded back for a fresh round of adjudication before the Ld. CIT(E).

3.1 The Ld. DR relied on the contents of the impugned order.

4.

We have considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the records before us. A perusal of the documents filed would reveal that the impugned order has been passed in an ex parte manner and even the fact that there is a continuing registration us/ 12AB of the Act which is in force till AY 2026-27 has not been considered. Accordingly, in the interest of substantive justice, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order in ITA 1023 and remit the same back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

ITA Nos. 1022 & 1023/Del/2026 SHRI MAHARAJA AGGARSAIN PARAKARTIK CHIKITSA & YOG PEETH, HARYANA 4.1 Similarly, since the application u/s 80G of the Act has been rejected merely on the ground that the application u/s 12AB of the Act was rejected, hence, even in this matter (ITA No.1022) the impugned order is set aside and the issue is remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

5.

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.06.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 30.06.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 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 →