AMRIT AAN CHARITABLE TRUST,VIKAS PURI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, CIVIC CENTRE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3748/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 June 2026AY 2026-273 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without granting a hearing. It directed the CIT(E) to provide an opportunity to the assessee and decide the matter on merit.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an charitable trust, applied for registration under sections 12A and 80G of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected the applications without providing an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) can reject registration applications without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and if the absence of an irrevocability clause is a valid ground for rejection.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A,Section 80G

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 Appellant: SHRI MOHAN GUPTA, CA
For Respondent: SHRI YASHVENDRA SINGH, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 22.06.2026Pronounced: 22.06.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 3747/DEL/2026
ITA No. 3748/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. 3747/DEL/2026&ITA No. 3748/DEL/2026 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2026-27

AMRIT AAN CHARITABLE COMMISSIONER OF A TRUST INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) F-156, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI VIKAS PURI, NEW DELHI- 110 018 (PAN :AAGTA2018J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

ASSESSEE BY :SHRI MOHAN GUPTA, CA 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 06.03.2026 u/s 12A & 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’).

2 Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We 2. 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. We observed that ld. CIT(E) has rejected the Registration on the basis of non-containing the express clause on irrevocability. We observed that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay had held contrary to the actions of the ld. CIT(E) in the case of Chamber of Consultants vs CIT(E) (2026) 184 taxmann.com 374 (Bom.). 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.

3.

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. 3748/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.

4.

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 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →