PRIYA RANJAN TRIVEDI INSTITUTE OF ENVIORNMENTAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH,SOUTH WEST DELHI vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8333/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2026AY 2025-20266 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) to decide the issue afresh after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The rejection was based on procedural grounds without considering the assessee's circumstances.

What were the facts?

The assessee applied for registration under Section 12AB but the CIT(E) rejected the application due to non-submission of documents. The assessee claimed to have faced unavoidable medical emergencies and family mishappenings, leading to requests for adjournment which were allegedly not considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of registration under Section 12AB for non-submission of documents, without considering genuine adjournment requests due to medical emergencies, violates principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Hearing: 06.05.2026Pronounced: 22.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.8333/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2025-26] Priya Ranjan Trivedi Vs ACIT (Exemption) Institute of Enviornmental Delhi Education And Research South West Delhi PAN No.AAATP5267E Appellant Respondent Appellant by None Respondent by Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing 06.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement 22.05.2026 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(E) in denying registration u/s.12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds :-

“1. The learned CIT (Exemptions)erred in law and on facts in rejection the appellant's application for registration u/s 12AB vide order dated 01.12.2025 solely on the ground of "non-submission of documents", without appreciating the appellant's bona fide adjournment requests arising out of unavoidable medical emergency and family mishappening.

The CIT(E) failed to consider the adjournment application filed on 24.11.2025 for the hearing scheduled on 27.11.2025 and a second adjournment request filed on 01.12.2025, which constitutes denial of a meaningful and effective opportunity of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice.”

3.

Inspite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was moved. Appeal is disposed off after hearing the Ld. DR.

4.

The statement of facts and the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are as under :-

1.

The learned CIT(Exemptions) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the appellant's application for registration u/s 12AB vide order dated 01.12.2025 solely on the 2025 solely on the ground of "non- submission of documents", without appreciating the appellant's bona fide adjournment requests arising out of unavoidable medical emergency and family mishappening. 2. The CIT(E) failed to consider the adjournment application filed on 24.11.2025 for the hearing scheduled on 27.11.2025 and a second adjournment request filed on 01.12.2025. which constitutes denial of a meaningful and effective opportunity of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. 3. The rejection is contrary to the judicial ratio laid down by:  Tewhima Permaculture Foundation vs CIT(E), ITAT Hyderabad (2024) - where ITAT held that rejection due to non-submission of documents without considering a valid adjournment on medical grounds is invalid.  Kush Innovative Foundation vs CIT(E), ITAT Delhi (2024)-where ITAT ruled that non-submission

alone cannot justify rejection when adjournment or genuine hardship exists.  Setu Sansthan vs CIT(E), ITAT Jaipur (2023)- where a mechanical, non-speaking order based only on procedural lapse was quashed. 4. The CIT(E) passed a non-speaking and mechanical order without any examination of the trust's objects, activities, or genuineness, contrary to the principle laid down in JITO Gandhidham Chapter vs CIT(E), ITAT Rajkot (2024) that registration cannot be denied without evaluating charitable objectives. 5. The rejection order is bad in law as the appellant was always willing to submit all documents (11-point list), but was prevented by circumstances beyond control, consistent with the principles in Vidhyapeeth Education Trust vs CIT(E), ITAT Bangalore, which mandates providing a meaningful opportunity of hearing. 6. The appellant has genuine charitable objects, and procedural delay due to medical emergency cannot be a ground to deny statutory registration u/s 12AB. 7. It is therefore prayed that the rejection order dated 01.12.2025 be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the CIT(E) with directions to grant a fresh effective opportunity to submit all documents and adjudicate the matter afresh. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any ground at the time of hearing. 3. Statement of Facts The appellant Trust filed an application for registration u/s 12AB and received a notice from the CIT(E) requiring submission of 11 documents/details. The Trust began collecting the documents. However, the responsible person suffered a medical emergency, and simultaneously a family mishappening occurred, making it impossible to compile the required documents in time.

Due to this unavoidable hardship, the appellant filed an adjournment application on 24.11.2025 for the hearing fixed on 27.11.2025. When the situation worsened, a second adjournment request was filed on 01.12.2025. Despite this, the CIT(E) passed the rejection order on 01.12.2025 without considering the adjournment and solely on the ground of "non-submission of documents", No opportunity of effective hearing or show-cause notice was provided, and the order contains no discussion on the objects or genuineness of the Trust, rendering it non-speaking. The Hon'ble ITAT in:  Tewhima Permaculture Foundation (2024)  Kush Innovative Foundation (2024)  Setu Sansthan (2023)  has categorically held that where adjournment is sought for genuine reasons, rejection for non- submission of documents violates natural justice. Similarly, in JITO Gandhidham Chapter (2024), ITAT held that denial of registration for mere procedural lapses without examining objects is legally unsustainable.

The appellant has now compiled all required documents and is fully prepared to submit the same before the CIT(E) upon remand.

The rejection order being procedural, non-speaking, and in violation of established judicial principles, deserves to be set aside. 4. Sample Written Submission After Remand (for future CIT(E) hearing)

"The rejection was only for non-submission of documents due to unavoidable medic emergency and family mishappening. There was no malafide Page | 4

intention. The Trust is filing herewith all the 11 documents sought earlier. The Trust prays that the application be accepted and 12AB registration granted."

5.

On perusal of the statement of facts it is observed that the Ld. CIT(E) required the assessee to submit 11 documents and the person responsible for looking after the matters suffered from a medical emergency and also a family mishappening occurred making it impossible to comply with the notice. The assessee sought an adjournment, however, the Ld. CIT(E) seems to have to passed the order rejecting the registration on the ground that assessee did not make any submissions or documents. The assessee contented that no opportunity for effective hearing was given. The assessee also stated that now it has complied all required documents and is fully prepared to submit the same before the Ld. CIT(E) upon remand.

6.

Taking note of the facts on record and totality of the facts and circumstances into consideration we restore this appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to decide the issue afresh after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

[SANJAY AWASTHI] [C.N. PRASAD] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 22.05.2026 NEHA , Sr.P.S.* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. 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 →