MASAWAT LIVELIHOOD FOUNDATION,DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), DELHI
Facts
The assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal with a delay of 112 days. The assessee's representative contended that the CIT(E) had not considered all the facts and documents submitted. The Ld. DR relied on the CIT(E)'s order.
Held
The Tribunal noted the delay in filing and condoned it after hearing both sides. Finding merit in the assessee's argument regarding incomplete consideration by the CIT(E), the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) considered all the facts and documents submitted by the assessee, and whether the appeals filed with a delay should be condoned.
Sections Cited
12A(1)(ac)(iii), 80G(5)(iii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 4012 & 4013/Del/2025 Asstt. Year : --- MASAWAT LIVELIHOOD FOUNDATION, VS. CIT(EXEMPTION), E-39, 4TH FLOOR, FLAT NO. 403, CIVIC CENTRE, HARI KOTHI, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, MINTO ROAD, S.O., ZAKIR NAGAR, S.O., NEW DELHI – 2 SOUTH EAST DELHI – 110 025 (PAN: DELM41171E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Mohd. Nawaz, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR.
Date of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 19.11.2025
ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: These appeals by the assessee are directed against the respective orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi passed u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and u/s. 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At the threshold, it is noted that there is a delay of 112 days in filing both the appeals before the Tribunal and for this the assessee has filed the petition for condonation. After hearing both the sides and perusing the records, we are of the view that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeals before the Tribunal, therefore, in the interest of justice, we condone the
delay in dispute in filing both the captioned appeals, for which Ld. DR has no objection. 3. After hearing the rival contention and perusing the records, we find that it
was the contention of the Ld. AR for the assessee that Ld. CIT(E), Delhi has not
considered the full facts of the case, evidence and / or documents submitted by the
applicant before him, which needs to be thoroughly examined by the Ld. CIT(E).
Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(E), Delhi.
Keeping in view the aforesaid factual matrix and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) in both the appeals for its fresh adjudication, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Applicant through his Ld. AR is directed to fully cooperate the Ld. CIT(E) during the proceedings and produce all the necessary documents, evidences before him to canvass its case properly. 5. In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19.11.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
Date: 16.02.2026 SRBhatnaggar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order,
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench 2 | P a g e
