BHAGWAN VALMIKI AMBEDKAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,HISAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member ITA No. 8010/Del/2025 :Asstt. Year: 2026-27 Bhagwan Valmiki Ambedkar Shiksha Vs CIT(Exemptions), Samiti, House No. 28, Bakshi Nagar, Chandigarh-160017 Near Shanti Nagar, Hisar, Haryana-125001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAHAB4110E Assessee by : None Revenue by : An Adjournment Application by ITO Date of Hearing: 01.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 01.06.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal of the assessee is directed against order of the Ld. CIT(E), Chandigarh, dated 29.11.2024, wherein the application for approval u/s 80G(5)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), filed by the applicant on 17.06.2024 has been rejected in the absence of approval u/s 80G of the Act.

2 ITA No. 8010/Del/2025 Bhagwan Valmiki Amedkar Shiksha Samiti 2. That the Ld. CIT(E) erred in holding that a fresh application u/s 80G is not maintainable once a previous application was rejected, despite the statute permitting re-application under the amended regime of Section 80G read with Rule 11AA and CBDT Circulars governing re-registration. 3. That the Ld. CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the rejection order dated 29.11.2024 was passed merely for non-compliance of notices, and therefore the second application could not have been summarily cancelled without granting mandatory opportunity of being heard as required under Section 80G(5)(iv), Section 12AB(4), and the principles of natural justice. 4. That the Ld. CIT(E) erred in treating the second application as “non-maintainable” without jurisdiction, ignoring that: (a) There is no bar in the Act preventing an assessee from applying afresh, (b) The rejection order was not on merits of the objects or activities, and (c) The assessee had furnished complete documentary evidence in the subsequent filing. 5. That the Ld. CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the appellant- society is duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, has commenced genuine charitable activities, maintains proper books of account, audit reports, bank statements, financials, photographs, beneficiary records, and satisfies all conditions prescribed u/s 80G(5). 6. That the Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting/cancelling the application solely on technical grounds and without examining the: (i) Annual audited accounts, (ii) Income-tax returns, (iii) Ledgers & activity details, (iv) Photographs & evidence of charitable activities, (v) Affidavits & undertakings u/s 2(15), 13(1), 13(3), duly furnished by the appellant. 7. That the Ld. CIT(E) erred in adopting a hyper-technical approach and in mechanically rejecting the application,, ignoring binding judicial precedents that registration/approval under 12AB/80G is to be granted at the stage of initial approval unless activities are found to be non-genuine or non- charitable. 8. That the Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without making any adverse finding regarding:  Nature of the objects of the appellant (charitable),  Genuineness of activities (supported by evidence),  Violation of s. 13(1)(c),  Violation of first proviso to s. 2(15). 9. That the rejection order is bad in law as it is contrary to:  Section 80G(5),  Rule 11AA,

3 ITA No. 8010/Del/2025 Bhagwan Valmiki Amedkar Shiksha Samiti  Principle of audi alteram partem,  CBDT Circular No. 11/2019,  Judgments of SC/HC/ITAT supporting liberal interpretation in favour of granting initial registration/approval. 10. That the Ld. CIT(E) erred in ignoring the written submissions, evidence file, and documentary proof uploaded by the appellant which were not considered at all in the impugned order. 11. That the cancellation order dated 08.10.2025 is invalid, non-speaking, mechanical, cryptic, and passed without application of mind and therefore liable to be quashed. 12. That the appellant satisfies all statutory conditions for grant of approval u/s 80G and therefore the Ld. CIT(E) ought to have granted approval instead of rejecting/cancelling the application.” 3. None appears on behalf of the assessee. However, the ld. DR has filed the adjournment application which is rejected. Accordingly, the matter is decided ex-parte qua assessee. The only contention raised before us is that the Principle of Natural Justice has not been followed while passing the impugned order as no effective opportunity of hearing has been given when rejecting the approval u/s 80(G) of the Act. It is thus deemed appropriate that in the light of principle of natural justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for considering it afresh by giving opportunity of hearing and to permit to file necessary documents.

4 ITA No. 8010/Del/2025 ITA No Bhagwan Valmiki Amedkar Shiksha Samiti Bhagwan Valmiki Amedkar Shiksha Samiti bound to follow the principal of natural justice. bound to follow the principal of natural justice. We extract the We extract the para 3.1 & 3.2 of the impugned order e impugned order which would make clear which would make clear that the effective opportunit fective opportunity of hearing has not been given, as y of hearing has not been given, as under: “3.1 On 26.10.2024, in response to the notice, the 3.1 On 26.10.2024, in response to the notice, the 3.1 On 26.10.2024, in response to the notice, the applicant has sought for an adjournment. Therefore, applicant has sought for an adjournment. Therefore, applicant has sought for an adjournment. Therefore, another letter granting necessary opportunity was issued another letter granting necessary opportunity was issued another letter granting necessary opportunity was issued to the applicant on 06.11.2024 and to the applicant on 06.11.2024 and the matter was fixed the matter was fixed for reply by 12.11.2024. In response to the above notice, for reply by 12.11.2024. In response to the above notice, for reply by 12.11.2024. In response to the above notice, the applicant has neither furnished any reply nor sought the applicant has neither furnished any reply nor sought the applicant has neither furnished any reply nor sought any any any adjournment. adjournment. adjournment. Another Another Another letter letter letter granting granting granting final final final opportunity was issued to the applicant on 14.11.2024 opportunity was issued to the applicant on 14.11.2024 opportunity was issued to the applicant on 14.11.2024 and the matter was and the matter was fixed for reply by 20.11.2024. In fixed for reply by 20.11.2024. In response to the above notices, again the applicant has response to the above notices, again the applicant has response to the above notices, again the applicant has neither furnished any reply nor sought any adjournment. neither furnished any reply nor sought any adjournment. neither furnished any reply nor sought any adjournment. As per the portal, it can be seen from the table below As per the portal, it can be seen from the table below As per the portal, it can be seen from the table below that the notices were delivered to the email id of the that the notices were delivered to the email id of the that the notices were delivered to the email id of the applicant as well as on the portal: pplicant as well as on the portal:

3.2 From the above table, it is evident that sufficient 3.2 From the above table, it is evident that sufficient 3.2 From the above table, it is evident that sufficient opportunities were afforded to the applicant to furnish opportunities were afforded to the applicant to furnish opportunities were afforded to the applicant to furnish the details/ documents and the applicant had read the the details/ documents and the applicant had read the the details/ documents and the applicant had read the notice on 11.10.2024. However, no information was filed notice on 11.10.2024. However, no information was fi notice on 11.10.2024. However, no information was fi by the applicant. Given the non by the applicant. Given the non-compliances on the compliances on the aforesaid occasions afforded to the applicant, it becomes aforesaid occasions afforded to the applicant, it becomes aforesaid occasions afforded to the applicant, it becomes evident that the applicant is not interested in pursuing evident that the applicant is not interested in pursuing evident that the applicant is not interested in pursuing the matter. In the absence of submissions regarding the the matter. In the absence of submissions regarding the the matter. In the absence of submissions regarding the activities, it is difficult to activities, it is difficult to verify both the nature of verify both the nature of objects & genuineness of activities of the applicant. It objects & genuineness of activities of the applicant. It objects & genuineness of activities of the applicant. It can safely be concluded that the queries raised could not can safely be concluded that the queries raised could not can safely be concluded that the queries raised could not be answered satisfactorily by the applicant. be answered satisfactorily by the applicant.” 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed without effective the impugned order has been passed without effective the impugned order has been passed without effective

5 ITA No. 8010/Del/2025 Bhagwan Valmiki Amedkar Shiksha Samiti hearing and principle of natural justice has not been followed. For these reasons, the impugned order is not maintainable and accordingly set aside. The end of justice shall be met in case the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for deciding the issue of requisite approval sought by the appellant afresh by affording an effective opportunity of hearing and considering the submissions to be made by the appellant/assessee. The assessee/appellant is also directed to make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the Ld. CIT(E) within the period of 60 days of this order.