INDEPTH VISION FOUNDATION,AMBALA vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1458/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 May 2026AY 2026-275 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) proceeded to reject the applications without effective service of notices and without examining the merits. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate its claim.

What were the facts?

The assessee's applications for registration under Sections 12AB and 80G were rejected by the CIT(Exemptions). The assessee contended that the notices were not effectively served, and the matter was not adjudicated on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of registration applications under Sections 12AB and 80G was valid without effective service of notice and proper adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

For Appellant: CA राजव क ओर से/
For Respondent: Smt. Geetiner Mann, CIT DR
Hearing: 22.04.2026Pronounced: 11.05.2026

Per Krinwant Sahay, AM : The captioned appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the separate orders, both dated 23.10.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh, whereby the applications

1457 & 1458-Chd-2025 2

of the Assessee for registration under Sections 12AB and 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) were rejected.

2.

Grounds of appeal, as raised by the Assessee are as under: -

ITA No. 1457/Chd/2025

1.

That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions has erred in facts and in law, by rejecting and cancelling the registration of the appellant assessee a non-profit company under section 12AB of the Act vide order dated 23.10.2025. 2. That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions has erred in facts and in law, by not adjudicating the matter of registration on merits of the case and without providing a fair opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions has erred in facts and in law, by rejecting the application of registration so filed by the appellant without finding and assigning any specific reason for such rejection/cancellation as provided under section 12AB(4) of the Act. 4. That the appellant craves to add or amend the grounds of appeals with leave of the Hon'ble Tribunal for just adjudication of the case. ITA No. 1458/Chd/2025

1.

That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions has erred in facts and in law, by

1457 & 1458-Chd-2025 3

rejecting and cancelling the registration of the appellant assessee a non-profit company under section 80G of the Act vide order dated 23.10.2025. 2. That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions has erred in facts and in law, by not adjudicating the matter of registration on merits of the case and without providing a fair opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. That the appellant craves to add or amend the grounds of appeals with leave of the Hon'ble Tribunal for just adjudication of the case.

3.

During the course of proceedings before us, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(E), Chandigarh erred both in facts and in law in rejecting and cancelling the registration of the appellant-assessee, a non-profit company, under Sections 12AB and 80G of the Act vide separate orders dated 23.10.2025. It was contended that no specific reasons, as contemplated under Section 12AB(4) of the Act, were assigned for such rejection/cancellation. It was further submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) failed to adjudicate the matter on merits and did not afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. According to the Assessee, the notices were merely uploaded on the ITBA portal and were not

1457 & 1458-Chd-2025 4

effectively served, due to which the Assessee remained unaware of the proceedings.

4.

Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E).

6.

We have considered the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) and the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. It is observed from the record that the notices were uploaded on the ITBA portal, however, no material has been placed before us to establish effective service of such notices upon the Assessee. Consequently, the Assessee could not comply with the requirements or furnish the requisite details. In the absence of such compliance, the Ld. CIT(E) proceeded to reject the applications for registration under Sections 12AB and 80G of the Act without examining the merits of the case or the material otherwise available on record.

7.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the principles of natural justice, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessee deserves one more opportunity to substantiate its claim by

1457 & 1458-Chd-2025 5

furnishing the requisite documents and information before the Ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, the matters in both the appeals are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The Ld. CIT(E) shall afford adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and shall decide the issues on merits after considering the evidences and submissions to be filed by the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments.

8.

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order Pronounced on 11.05.2026. Sd/- Sd/- ( LALIET KUMAR ) ( KRINWANT SAHAY) Judicial Member Accountant Member “आर.के.” आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →