RISHI KANT FOUNDATION,ROHINI, DELHI vs. CIT, (EXEMPTION DELHI), MINTO ROAD,DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were breached as the CIT(E) did not provide a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard before rejecting the application. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh determination.
What were the facts?
The assessee applied for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected the application for non-compliance with requests for documents and information, despite multiple opportunities. The assessee appealed, claiming a lack of adequate opportunity to be heard.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(E) properly afforded an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee before rejecting the registration application. Whether the rejection was made on merits or ex-parte due to non-submission of documents.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR
PER RAMIT KOCHAR, AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Delhi [CIT(E), in short) dated 27.02.2026( DIN & Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2025-26/1086655453(1)) rejecting application filed by the assessee for seeking registration u/s 12A(1)(c)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short).
Brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed an application dated 30.09.2025 in Form No.10AB for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the 1961 Act, before learned
2 ITA Nos.4385 /Del/2026 Rishi Kant Foundation v. CIT(E)
CIT(E). The Ld. CIT(E) issued questionnaire dated 24.12.2025 to the assessee with the request to furnish certain details ,document and/or clarification in support of the claim of the registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act. The assessee did not file the documents/evidences etc required by the ld. CIT(E). The assessee was accorded one more opportunity by ld. CIT(E), but the assessee again failed to file response/reply in compliance thereof. Since, the assessee failed to file details/information in support of genuineness of the activities and charitable objects, the ld. CIT(E) vide order dated 27.02.2026 passed in Form No. 10AD rejected application of the assessee for seeking registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the 1961 Act.. The ld. CIT(E) gave liberty to the assessee to again apply for approval u/s 12A of the 1961 Act , as per relevant provisions and necessary justification.
Aggrieved, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that ld. CIT(E) did not give proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee . It was submitted that ld. CIT(E) dismissed the aforesaid application filed by the assessee ex-parte on the grounds that the assessee has not filed any documents/evidences etc. as called for by ld. CIT(E), without deciding the application of the assessee on merits, and prayers were made to restore the application before ld. CIT(E) for denovo determination of the application for grant of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) on merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee made statement before the Bench that if the matter is restored to the file of ld. CIT(E), the assessee will file all the requisite details to support its application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the 1961 Act.
3.2 The ld. CIT-DR relied upon the order passed by ld. CIT(E).
We have considered rival contentions and perused the materials available on record, which are culled out in preceding para’s of this order and are not repeated again. The
3 ITA Nos.4385 /Del/2026 Rishi Kant Foundation v. CIT(E)
assessee has filed application with ld. CIT(E) for grant of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii), dated 30.09.2025 in Form No. 10AB. The ld. CIT(E) issued notice along with questionnaire , dated 24.12.2025 to the assessee, but The assessee did not file any response/reply/documents/evidences to the said notice. One more opportunity was afforded by ld. CIT(E), but the assessee again did not filed any response/reply in compliance thereof . The ld. CIT(E) dismissed aforesaid application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) , vide order dated 27.02.2026 . The ld. CIT(E) did not issued any summons u/s 131 to the Trustees before rejecting application of the assessee The Principle of natural justice are breached. The assessee has now filed an appeal with the Tribunal, and prayers are made to grant one more opportunity. Statement is made before the Bench, that if one more opportunity is provided, the assessee will duly comply with the directions of ld. CIT(E) , and file all necessary details to support its contentions. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and fairness to both parties, we are of the considered view that end of the justice will be met to send back the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for denovo determination of the application of the assessee , dated 30.09.2025 filed for seeking registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the 1961 Act, on merits in accordance with law. We clarify that we have not commented on the merits of the issues in the appeal, and the ld. CIT(E) shall pass orders on merits in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate in the set aside remand proceedings to be conducted by the ld. CIT(E), otherwise the ld.CIT(E) shall be free to pass orders in accordance with law on merits. All the contentions are kept open. The orders of the ld. CIT(E) , dated 27.02.2026 is set aside and the matter is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for denovo determination of the aforesaid application on merits in accordance with law after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Evidences/ contentions filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(E) shall be admitted by the ld. CIT(E) and shall be decided on merits in accordance with law. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. We order accordingly.
4 ITA Nos.4385 /Del/2026 Rishi Kant Foundation v. CIT(E)
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the Open Court on 25.06.2026
/- Sd/- Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 25.06.2026 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)
- Sanskardham Nandan, Mehsana vs CIT(Exemption), AhmedabadITA 2980/AHD/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Ss Early Learning Society, Hyderabad vs CIT (Exemption), HyderabadITA 1208/HYD/2025[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Lalaram Gupta Charitable Trust, Agra vs ITO, Exemption, AgraITA 660/AGR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Lalaram Charitable Trust, Agra vs ITO, Exemption, AgraITA 659/AGR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 592/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026