BRM EDUCATION & WELFARE SOCIETY,V-BARSEEN vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, ROHAK, ROHTAK
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the registration without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and in violation of natural justice principles. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee society appealed against the order of the CIT(Exemptions) rejecting its registration applications under section 80G and 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) had passed ex parte orders.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(E) followed the principles of natural justice while rejecting the registration applications. Whether the rejection was based on proper appreciation of facts and adequate opportunity to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR
Heard together (2 matters)
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 SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3641/Del/2026, A.Y. 2026-27 ITA No. 3642/Del/2026, A.Y. AACAB0177G BRM Education & Vs. ITO (Exemptions) Welfare Society Rohtak V-Barseen, The. & Distt. Fatehabad, Fatehabad Haryana �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AACAB0177G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Prem Rajpal, Adv. Shri Pulak Rajpal, Adv. Respondent by : Shri Yashvendra Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 22.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 22.06.2026
O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:
The appeals filed by the assessee against the order dated 18.02.2026, under section 80G and 12AB/(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(E)”].
P a g e | 2 ITA No. 3641 & 3642/Del/2026 BRM Education & Welfare Society
Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We observed that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on the basis of incorrect assumptions, improper appreciation of facts, and without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Ld. CIT(E) has passed ex parte order in violation of principle of natural justice, the matter may be sent back to Ld. CIT(E).
From examination of record, it is crystal clear that principles of natural justice have not been followed by the appellant authority. 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. It is considered expedient to set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and restored the matter to the files of the ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision in accordance with law, after affording fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 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.
P a g e | 3 ITA No. 3641 & 3642/Del/2026 BRM Education & Welfare Society
Similarly, the assessee is in appeal before us by filing separate appeal vide ITA No. 3642/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.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22.06.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30.06.2026 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI
More judgments on Section 80G
- Savan Dayalal Ladani, Rajkot vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1)…ITA 575/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Pareshbhai Savjibhai Khunt, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(2)(3), RajkotITA 842/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 777/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 776/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026