SHREE SHREE 108 BABA HEMADASS GAOSHALA SAMITI,MAHENDERGARH, HARYANA vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, ROHTAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2971/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 September 20264 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 387 days and 660 days in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's justification of a bona fide misunderstanding of procedural requirements to be adequate. The Tribunal was satisfied with the explanation and acknowledged that no litigant benefits from intentionally delaying their own matters. Regarding the substantive issues, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's applications for registration under Section 12A and Section 80G without due consideration of the facts on record, indicating a non-application of mind. The Tribunal found that the rejection was purely on account of non-compliance, and that a reasonable opportunity of being heard is a right of every taxpayer. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(E) and remitted the matters back to the CIT(E) for adjudication de novo in accordance with the law. The CIT(E) was directed to provide the assessee with a due opportunity of being heard, and the assessee was directed to comply with all statutory notices, with any non-compliance to be viewed adversely. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shree Shree 108 Baba Hemadass Gaoshala Samiti, filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, against orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)], New Delhi. The appeals pertain to Assessment Year 2025-26 and challenge the rejection of applications for registration under Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) and Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee experienced significant delays in filing these appeals, attributing them to a bona fide misunderstanding of the procedural requirements after the initial rejection of its Section 12A application. The assessee filed a fresh application instead of appealing the first rejection, which was then also rejected. The ITAT noted a delay of 387 days and 660 days in filing the appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal should be condoned, considering the assessee's explanation of a bona fide misunderstanding of procedural requirements, turning on the principles of natural justice and the ITAT's power to condone delays. 2. Whether the assessee's right to natural justice was violated by the CIT(E) in rejecting its applications for registration under Section 12A and Section 80G without providing a due opportunity of being heard, and whether the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the delay was due to a genuine misunderstanding of the procedure and not willful or wanton. The assessee also contended that its right to natural justice was violated as it was not given a proper opportunity to be heard before the rejection of its applications, and requested a chance for remission back to the CIT(E) with an assurance of full compliance. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through the CIT(DR), relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii),Section 80G,Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

Pronounced: 25.09.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िद�ी पीठ�, नई िद�ी INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES, ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2971 & 2972/DEL/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: AY 2025-26) SHREE SHREE 108 BABA ITO EXEMPTIONS HEMADASS GAOSHALA SAMITI AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPP. VILL. BHOJWAS, MANSAROVAR PARK, MAHENDERGARH, HARYANA, Vs. ROHTAK, HARYANA 124001 MAHENDRAGARH-123034, ROHTAK-124001, HARYANA HARYANA अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AAMTS6833M

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Rajesh Goel, Adv & CA Prashant Goel ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Sher Singh, CIT(DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 07.07.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 25.09.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(E)] both dated 10.12.2024 passed under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2025-26. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

ITA 2971 & 2972/DEL/2026 SHREE SHREE 108 BABA HEMADASS GAOSHALA SAMITI 2. The appeal of the assessee vide ITA No.2971/Del/2026 is regarding the rejection of its request filed under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act. The appeal of the assessee vide ITA No.2972/Del/2026 is regarding the rejection of its request filed under section 80G(5)(ii) of the Act. As both the appeals are of the same assessee concerning common issues of rejection of its application under section 12A and 80G, they were heard together and for the purposes of convenience, adjudicated by this common order.

3.

The Registry has identified a delay of 387 days and 660 days in these cases, in filing of these appeals before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assessee, has pleaded that the appellant applied for registration u/s 12A by filing Form No. 10AB on 29.06.2024, the learned CIT (Exemptions) rejected this application on 10.12.2024. However, the assessee/appellant was under a bona fide belief, the society filed a fresh application on 30.09.2025 instead of appealing the First Rejection Order. Again, the learned CIT (Exemptions) rejected the second application on 06.02.2026, declaring it "nonmaintainable". Then the assessee/appellant realized that it should have filed appeal against the First Rejection Order dated 10.12.2024. Therefore, the delay resulted solely from the appellant's genuine misunderstanding regarding the procedure and not from negligence. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assessee submitted that there will not be case of any non- compliance now. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objection to the

Page 2 of 4

ITA 2971 & 2972/DEL/2026 SHREE SHREE 108 BABA HEMADASS GAOSHALA SAMITI condonation of delay. We have considered the justification put forth by the assessee and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay of 387 days and 660 days and proceed to adjudicate these appeals. 4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that its right to natural justice has been violated in as much as due opportunity of being heard has not been given before rejecting its request for grant of registration u/s 12A and 80G of the Act. The ld. Counsel accordingly requested that it be provided one last chance to defend its case and, the matter be considered for remission back to the ld. CIT(E). The ld. Counsel assured that full compliance shall be made to the statutory notices issued by the Revenue authorities.

5.

The ld. DR placed reliance upon the orders of the lower authorities

6.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have noted that the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected applications of the assessee without due consideration of facts on records alluding towards a non- application of mind. We have noted from para-3.11 to para-5 of the order dated 10.12.2024 that the ld. CIT(E) has dismissed assessee’s application for grant of registration under section 12A and u/s 80G purely on account of non-compliance of the assessee. Reasonable opportunity of being heard is right of every tax payer. Be that as it may be in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set-aside

Page 3 of 4

ITA 2971 & 2972/DEL/2026 SHREE SHREE 108 BABA HEMADASS GAOSHALA SAMITI

the impugned orders of the ld. CIT(E) and remit the matter of grant of registration u/s 12A as well as u/s 80G back to ld. CIT(E) for adjudication de novo in accordance with law. Due opportunity of being heard shall be given to the assessee. The assessee shall comply with all the statutory notices and any non- compliance shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No.2971/Del/2026 and vide ITA No. 2972/Del/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

Finally, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25th September, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 25.09.2026 Shekhar Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

Page 4 of 4

More judgments on Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)

All 150 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →