Loading judgment…
Facts
Two assessees, M/s Red Sienna Educational Services and M/s Rosella Educational Foundation, appealed against the CIT(E)'s orders denying them Section 12AB(1) and Section 80G registrations. The assessees contended that the CIT(E) did not properly consider the detailed evidence regarding their charitable objects and activities.
Held
The Tribunal found prima facie merit in the assessees' arguments, noting that the CIT(E)'s orders did not adequately deal with the factual matrix. Consequently, all four appeals were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh and appropriate adjudication, with three effective opportunities for the assessees to plead and prove their case.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) erred in denying Section 12AB(1) and Section 80G registrations without properly considering all detailed evidence submitted by the assessees.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara&
ORDER Per Bench: Both these assessees i.e. M/s Red Sienna Educational Services and M/s Rosella Educational Foundation, had filed their instant twin appeals each to 3818/Del/2024; respectively. All other relevant details thereof stand tabulated as under:
Respondent Order passed against Proceedings No. u/s 1. 3815/Del/2024 Red Sienna CIT(E) CIT(E), Delhi, 12AB Educational DIN & order No. Services ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/ 2024-25/1065862230(1) Dated 20.06.2024 2. 3818/Del/2024 Red Sienna CIT(E) CIT(E), Delhi, 80G Educational DIN & order No. Services ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/ 2024-25/1065862319(1) Dated 20.06.2024 3. 3816/Del/2024 Rosella CIT(E) CIT(E), Delhi, 12AB Educational DIN & order No. Foundation ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/ 2024-25/1066156021(1) Dated 27.06.2024 4. 3817/Del/2024 Rosella CIT(E) CIT(E), Delhi, 80G Educational DIN & order No. Foundation ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/ 2024-25/1066156044(1) Dated 27.06.2024
Heard both these assessees as well as the department through their learned representatives. Case files perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that both these assessees are identically aggrieved by the learned CIT(E)’s respective orders denying them section 12AB(1) as well as section 80G registration(s) which form sole subject matter of adjudication before us.
Learned counsel invites our attention to the CIT(E) impugned orders rejecting section 12AB registration(s) and & 3818/Del/2024 Red Sienna Educational Services & 3817/Del/2024 Rosella Educational Foundation submits that he has not considered the corresponding detailed evidence in support of their charitable objects as well as the consequential activities carried out which was submitted in detail, in the lower proceedings. Our attention is further invited to the assessees’ identical pleadings that all the afore-stated material duly form part of records in the lower proceedings.
The Revenue draws strong support from the learned CIT(E) impugned respective findings declining both these assessees’ section 12AB as well as section 80G registration(s).
Be that as it may, we are prima facie find merit in the assessees arguments at this stage as it’s very much evident that learned CIT(E) impugned order(s) have not been passed after dealing with the relevant factual matrix as indicated by the learned counsel. We thus deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore these twin assessee’s instant four appeals back to the CIT(E) for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law preferably within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the assessees shall plead and prove these case(s) at their own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
These twin assessee’s four appeals i.e. to 3818/Del/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 21/03/2025.