Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2025-26 arises against an order of the CIT(Exemptions) rejecting its section 12A registration application. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the case proceeded ex-parte. The CIT(E) also proceeded ex-parte in its detailed discussion.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear and the matter proceeded ex-parte. Considering the possibility of communication gaps, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication. The assessee is given three opportunities to plead and prove its case.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) rightly rejected the section 12A registration application without affording proper opportunity to the assessee.
Sections Cited
12AB(1)(b)(ii), 12A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2025-26 arises against the CIT(Exemptions), Chandigarh’s DIN & order No. ITBA / EXM / F / EXM45 / 2025-26 / 10788363370(1) dated 10.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(E)’s detailed discussion has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee thereby rejecting it’s section 12A registration application.
Vaidik Lok Kalyan Trust 4. Ms. Monika Singh vehemently argues during the course of hearing in support of CIT(E)’s finding that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting it’s case and therefore, his instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stand and are of the considered view that since the CIT(E) has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, possibility of some communication gaps between the taxpayer and the arguing counsel could not be altogether ruled out.
Faced with this situation and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(E) for it’s afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at it’s own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.