THINK GOOD FOUNDATION,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD EXEMP 2(3), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5150/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 June 2026AY 2025-20263 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 assessee's application. To ensure natural justice, the assessee deserves another opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee's claim was rejected by the CIT(E) for failure to provide necessary details. The assessee argued that notices from the CIT(E) were not received, hence no compliance was made.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) followed due process by ensuring proper service of notices before rejecting the assessee's application and whether the assessee was given adequate opportunity to present their case.

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.5150/Del/2026 [Assessment Year: 2025-26]

Think Good Foundation Vs. ITO 1/22, Second Floor, Asaf Ali Ward Exemp 2 (3) Road, Central Delhi, Delhi- Delhi 110002 PAN No.AAICT4022G Appellant Respondent

Appellant by Sh. Manish Kumar, CA 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 18.11.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(E) Delhi for the A.Y. 2025-26.

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 →