Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's application for registration under Section 12A and subsequent approval under Section 80G were rejected by the CIT(E). The CIT(E) based the 80G rejection solely on the 12A rejection without independent verification and without providing an opportunity to the assessee. This appeal arises from that rejection.
Held
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(E) acted improperly by rejecting the 80G application based solely on the 12A rejection, without independent review or natural justice. The Tribunal noted a similar previous order regarding the 12A application.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the 80G approval application based solely on the rejection of the 12A registration, without independent consideration and due process.
Sections Cited
80G(5), 12A, 10AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
ORDER
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10.07.2025 of the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Delhi passed under clause (ii)(b)(B) of second proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Heard both the parties and perused the records.
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that since the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the regular registration u/s. 12A of the Act vide order dated 26.6.2025 and also provisional registration granted vide order dated 3.3.2023 for the period AY 2023-24 to AY 2024-25 was also cancelled and as a result thereof the assessee was not having regular registration u/s. 12A and in the absence thereof, the application filed in Form 10AB for grant of approval u/s. 80G was rejected, against which the assessee is in appeal before us.
At the time of hearing, Ld. AR has submitted that CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for approval u/s. 80G solely on the basis of rejection of Section 12A application without independently verifying the merits of the 80G application. It was further submitted that Ld. CIT(E) while passing the rejection order of 80G application, has not given any reasoning or opportunity for submission of pending documentations, thus violated the principles of natural justice. He placed a copy of order dated 2.12.2025 of the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in (AY 2025-26), wherein the Bench in the interest of justice, restore the assessee’s appeal back to the Ld. CIT(E) for his afresh appropriate adjudication u/s. 12A of the Act.
Ld. DR relied upon the order of Ld. CIT(E).
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. We find force in the contention of the ld. AR that Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application for approval u/s. 80G solely on the basis of rejection of Section 12A application without independently verifying the merits of the 80G application and passed a non-speaking order, without giving any opportunity for submission requisite documents/ evidences. We further note that the Coordinate Bench vide its order 2.12.2025 in assessee’s own case in (AY 2025- 26), in the interest of justice, restore the assessee’s appeal back to the Ld. CIT(E) for his afresh appropriate adjudication u/s. 12A of the Act. 6.1 In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, we deem it fit and proper to remit back the issue in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) in the instant appeal for fresh adjudication, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the applicant/assessee by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law.
2 | P a g e Assessee/Applicant is also directed to produce all the documentary evidences before the Ld. CIT(E) to substantiate its case appropriately.