PINGAKSH FOUNDATION,DELHI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3719/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 June 2026AY 2025-263 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the applications were rejected without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) to provide an opportunity of hearing and decide the issues on merit.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the rejection of their applications for registration under Section 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act. The appeals were filed with a delay of 124 days, which was condoned by the tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the applications for registration under Section 12AB and 80G were rightly rejected without affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G,Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Respondent: SHRI YASHVENDRA SINGH, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 22.06.2026Pronounced: 22.06.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 3718/DEL/2026
ITA No. 3719/DEL/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3718/DEL/2026&ITA No. 3719/DEL/2026 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2025-26

PINGAKSH FOUNDATION COMMISSIONER OF A-19, PRIYA DARSHANI VIHAR, INCOME (EXEMPTION) LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-09 CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO (PAN :AAETP3759K) ROAD, NEW DELHI- 02 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :NONE REVENUE BY :SHRI YASHVENDRA SINGH, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 22.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 22.06.2026 ORDER PER BENCH :

1.

The assessee has filed appeals against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(E)”, for short]dated 10.03.2026 u/s 12AB& 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’)

2.

At the threshold, it is noticed that the appeal is time-barred by 124 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed by theassessee. After considering the reasons explained therein, we

2 hereby condone the delay of 124 days in filing of appeal by the assessee.

3.

Heard ld. DR of the revenue and perused the material on record. We observed that the ld. CIT (E) rejected the application for registration u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) without giving any opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In our considered view and in the interest of justice, assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard on merit. Therefore, we direct ld. CIT (E) to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit as per law. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the ld.CIT (E) on the date of hearing and cooperate with the tax authorities. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

Similarly, the registration u/s 80G was also rejected on the same ground. The assessee is in appeal before us by filing separate appeal vide ITA No. 3719/Del/2026. We remit this issue also back to the file of ld. CIT (E) in the interest of justice. Both the issues under consideration may be decided as per law.

3 5. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 22nd day of June, 2026 after the conclusion of the hearing. Sd/- sd/-

(VIMAL KUMAR) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated:24.06.2026 Pooja Mittal Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals). 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →