TARA DEVI MEMORIAL TRUST,DELHI vs. EXEMPTION WARD 2(3) , DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5143/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 June 2026AY 2026-273 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have ensured proper service of notices before rejecting the claim. The assessee deserves another opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's claim was rejected by the CIT(E) for failure to provide necessary details. The assessee claimed they did not receive the notices from the CIT(E).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) properly served notices on the assessee before rejecting the claim for exemption. Whether the assessee was given adequate opportunity to comply with the requirements.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI

Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI KRIWANT SAHAY

Hearing: 22.06.2026Pronounced: 25.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRIWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.5143/Del/2026 [Assessment Year: 2026-27] Tara Devi Memorial Trust Vs. Ward Exemption 2 (3) Wz-34, Hari Nagar, Delhi New Delhi PAN No.AAETT5266H

Appellant Respondent

Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Mahajan, CIT DR

Date of Hearing 22.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25.06.2026 ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY A.M.

Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 18.03.2026 passed by the Ld. CIT(E) Delhi for the A.Y. 2026-27.

2.

The Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has failed to

file necessary details/ information required by the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E). The assessee has also failed to file the details in support of the genuineness of the activities, charitable objectives of the trust.

3.

During the proceedings before us the Ld. Counsel submitted that the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) were not received by the assessee, therefore, no compliance was made by the assessee.

4.

Per contra the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(E).

5.

We have considered the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and the Ld. DR. We have also gone through the order of the Ld. CIT(E). In our considered view before rejecting the application of the assessee the Ld. CIT(E) should have ensured that all notices issued by him were served on the assessee, in any case, in order to have natural justice to the assessee, the assessee deserves to have another opportunity. Accordingly, we remand back this case to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with the instruction that adequate opportunity should have given to the assessee to file all the required details. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices and various queries raised by the Ld. CIT(E).

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [MADHUMITA ROY] [KRINWANT SAHAY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANTMEMBER Dated: 25.06.2026 NEHA , Sr.P.S.* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →