TCI INSTITUTE OF LOGISTICS,FARIDABAD HARYANA vs. EXEMPTIONS WARD, FARIDABAD HARYANA, EXEMPTIONS WARD, FARIDABAD HARYANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2765/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 September 2026AY 2026-272 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the Ld. CIT(E) had passed ex-parte orders rejecting the application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) due to the absence of requisite evidence, and also declined approval under Section 80G for want of registration under Section 12AB. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit both issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to adjudicate the matters afresh after making necessary verification, if any, and affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard to furnish the requisite documents and evidences. The assessee is directed to furnish complete details and evidence before the Ld. CIT(E) and cooperate with the proceedings. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the issues were being remitted for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The assessee, TCI Institute of Logistics, filed appeals against two separate orders dated 24.2.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh. These orders rejected the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed in Form 10AB, and also declined approval under Section 80G of the Act. The assessee contended that the orders were passed ex-parte without sufficient opportunity to present evidence. The revenue relied on the orders of the CIT(Exemption). The appeals were filed for Assessment Year 2026-27.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(Exemption) erred in law and facts by passing an ex-parte order rejecting the application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) in the absence of evidence? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)). 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(Exemption) erred in declining approval under Section 80G of the Act, noting that registration under Section 12AB was a prerequisite, without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 80G(5)). Assessee's contentions: The Ld. CIT(E) passed ex-parte orders rejecting the application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and declining approval under Section 80G without providing adequate opportunity to be heard and produce requisite documents. The assessee requested the issues be remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after affording sufficient opportunity. Revenue's contentions: The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the Ld. CIT(E).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii),Section 80G,Section 80G(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Gupta, Adv
Hearing: 14.07.2026Pronounced: 14.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 2765 & 2766/Del/2026 A.YR. : 2026-27 TCI INSTITUTE OF LOGISTICS VS. EXEMPTIONS WARD 69, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, FARIDABAD SECTOR-32, GURGAON-122001 HARYANA HARYANA (PAN: AAECT9627P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by : Ms. Neha Gupta, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Lal Ram Sanga Sailo, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 14.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 14.07.2026

ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP : These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders both dated 24.2.2026 of the Ld. CIT(Exemption), Chandigarh passed u/s. 12AB(1)(ac)(ii) and u/s. 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively. 2. Ld. AR has submitted that Ld. CIT(E) has erred in law and facts by passing the exparte order rejecting the application filed in Form 10AB for registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) in the absence of evidence. He further submitted that Ld. CIT(E) while rejecting the approval u/s. 80G of the Act noted that in the absence of registration u/s. 12AB does not make the requirement for approval as mandated by section 80G(5) of the Act, thus the approval u/s. 80G(5) of the Act was declined, without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee/applicant. Therefore, it was requested to remit back the issues in both the appeals to the file of the CIT(E) to adjudicate the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to produce the requisite documents before the Ld. CIT(E) in order to canvass its case. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the Ld. CIT(E).

3.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is undisputed fact that Ld. CIT(E) passed both the exparte orders rejecting the application filed in Form 10AB for registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) in the absence of requisite evidences and also declined the approval u/s. 80G in the absence of registration u./s 12AB of the Act. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to remit back the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to adjudicate the same afresh, after making necessary verification, if any, and afford adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in order to furnish the requisite documents/evidences before him so as to substantiate its case adequately and then decide the issues, in accordance with law, afresh. However, Assessee is directed through the Ld. AR to furnish the complete details/ evidences before the Ld. CIT(E) in accordance with law and fully cooperate with him during the proceedings. We hold and direct accordingly. 4. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid manner. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 14.7.2026. Sd/- Sd/-

(MANISH AGARWAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT

Date: 28-9-2026

SRBHATNAGAR

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →