MAA CHINTPURNI MANDIR TRUST,GURGAON vs. EXEMPTIONS WARD FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5365/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 January 2026AY 2023-24Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the larger interest of justice. Considering that the CIT(E) had proceeded ex-parte, the Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and decided to restore the appeal for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2023-24 arose against an order by the CIT(E) which proceeded ex-parte and rejected the assessee's Section 12A registration application. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and a delay of 638 days in filing the appeal was noted.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication given the ex-parte proceedings and possible communication gaps, despite the delay and non-appearance of the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB(I)(b)(ii),Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT-DR
Hearing: 27.01.2026Pronounced: 27.01.2027

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2023-24 arises against the CIT(E), Chandigarh’s DIN & order No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2022-23/1049038199(1) dated 23.01.2023, in proceedings u/s 12AB(I)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

Delay of 638 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

Maa Chintpurni Mandir Trust 4. 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.

5.

Ms. Amish S. Gupt 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.

6.

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.

7.

Faced with this situation, 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 his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →