PUNYADHAMA,RISHABH VIHAR, DELHI vs. CIT, EXEMPTION DELHI, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4488/Del/2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: NA)

Punyadhama CIT(Exemption), 102, Rishab Vihar, Delhi- Income Tax Department 110092 v. Civic Centre, Minto Road Delhi-110002 PAN-AACTP1384Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by C A Shri R K Gaur Department by Shri Sher Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing 24.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25.06.2026 ORDER 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/EXM45/2025-26/1086647638(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). 2. 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 CIT(E). The Ld. CIT(E) issued questionnaire dated 08.12.2025 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 reply. One more opportunity was granted by ld. CIT(E), but again there was no response from the assessee. Thus, the assessee did not file any reply/response thereto the aforesaid two

2 ITA Nos.4488 /Del/2026 Punayadhama v. CIT(E)

notices. 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, on the grounds that the assessee has failed to submit the requisite details/evidences , in support of genuineness of the activities and charitable objects. 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 justification. 3. 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 reply/response to the two notices/questionnaire issued by ld. CIT(E), without deciding the appeal 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). 4. 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 assessee has filed application with ld. CIT(E) for grant of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii), dated 30.09.2025 . The ld. CIT(E) issued notice along with questionnaire , dated 08.12.2025 to the assessee. The assessee did not file any response/reply to the said notice. The ld. CIT(E) issued fresh notice dated 19.02.2026 for compliance by the assessee, but the same again remained non compliant by the assessee. No further opportunity was provided by ld. CIT(E). The ld. CIT(E) dismissed aforesaid application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) , vide order dated 27.02.2026 . Principles of natural justice are

3 ITA Nos.4488 /Del/2026 Punayadhama v. CIT(E)

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. 5. 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

4 ITA Nos.4488 /Del/2026 Punayadhama v. CIT(E)