RIPUDAMAN CHARITABLE TRUST,DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to submit details. The cancellation orders were set aside for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a charitable trust, had its provisional registration under sections 80G and 12AB cancelled by the CIT(E) for non-compliance with e-notices. The trust claimed these notices were not received and that principles of natural justice were violated.
What were the issues?
Whether the cancellation of registration was justified without proper notice and opportunity to be heard, and if the principles of natural justice were violated.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE- & MRS. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
ORDER PER RENU JAUHRI :
The above captioned two appeals are preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20.08.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(E), Delhi u/s 80G and 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, “Act”). following grounds of appeal have been raised:
“ 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has erred, both in law and on facts, in passing 1 | P a g e
6385 6397_DEL_2025_Ripudaman Charitable Trust the impugned order cancelling the registration granted u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the AY 2023-2024 onwards merely on the ground of non-compliance of e- notices, without appreciating that such notices were never received by the appellant trust but the hard copy of one notice through post was only received after the passing of the final order of rejection.
2. That the learned CIT (Exemptions) erred in violating the principles of natural justice by not providing proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing the order cancelling the registration u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act-1961.
That the learned CIT (Exemptions) failed to appreciate that all the necessary documents and details in support of the charitable nature and activities of the appellant trust were available and could have been produced had a proper opportunity been granted.
4. That the cancellation order is arbitrary and unsustainable as it does not establish any "specified violation" under Income Tax Act, such as non-genuine activities, misuse of funds, or non-compliance with other laws, and is based merely on procedural non-response due to lack of notice.
5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”
following grounds of appeal have been raised.
“ 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has erred, both in law and on facts, in passing the impugned order cancelling the registration granted u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the AY 2023-2024 onwards merely on the ground of non- compliance of e-notices, without appreciating that such notices were never received by the appellant trust but the hard copy of one notice through post was only received after the passing of the final order of rejection.
That the learned CIT (Exemptions) erred in violating the principles of natural justice by not providing proper and 2 | P a g e
6385 6397_DEL_2025_Ripudaman Charitable Trust reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing the order cancelling the registration u/s 12A. 3. That the learned CIT (Exemptions) failed to appreciate that all the necessary documents and details in support of the charitable nature and activities of the appellant trust were available and could have been produced had a proper opportunity been granted.
4. That the cancellation order is arbitrary and unsustainable as it does not establish any "specified violation" under Income Tax Act, such as non-genuine activities, misuse of funds, or non-compliance with other laws, and is based merely on procedural non-response due to lack of notice.
5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing ”
Since facts and circumstances in both these appeals are identical, these are being disposed off by a common order.
Brief facts are that the assessee, a charitable trust, obtained provisional registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) and 80G vide orders dated 08.03.2023. Subsequently, the assessee filed separate applications for obtaining regular registration in Form 10AB on 31.03.2025 u/s 12A as well as approval u/s 80G of the Act. Ld. CIT(E) issued a questionnaire seeking certain details/clarifications, however, the assessee sought further adjournment. Two more notices were issued but the assessee did not furnish the requisite details. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(E) proceeded to reject the application for registration u/s 12A as well as 80G of the Act. He also cancelled the provisional registration/ approval granted vide orders dated 08.03.2023. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 | P a g e
6385 6397_DEL_2025_Ripudaman Charitable Trust 6. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that sufficient opportunity was not given to the assessee to make requisite compliance and has requested for remanding the matter to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration. Ld. DR has not objected to the said proposition.
After hearing both the parties, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore both the orders of rejection of registration/approval u/s 12A & 80G to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to submit requisite details. The assessee is also directed to make necessary compliance before the Ld. CIT(E) to enable him to decide the application on merits.
In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21-01-2026.
More judgments on Section 80G
- Savan Dayalal Ladani, Rajkot vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1)…ITA 575/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Pareshbhai Savjibhai Khunt, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(2)(3), RajkotITA 842/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 777/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 776/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
