MATRIBHOOMI SEWA SANSTHA,SOUTH EAST vs. WARD EXEMPTION 1(4), CIVIC CENTRE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5745/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 January 2026AY 2025-26Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard and that the notice lacked clarity. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the issue back to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the order of the CIT(E) rejecting their application for registration under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that their activities were genuine and that they were not given a proper opportunity to present their case. The CIT(E) rejected the application due to perceived deficiencies in the provided information and the mention of an incorrect section.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(E) and whether the notice issued was legally sound in the rejection process was legally sound.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH,

Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Ms. Manpreet Kaur, AR
For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Hearing: 06.01.2026Pronounced: 06.01.2026

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. ld. CIT(E) - Delhi dated 08.07.2025 pertaining to A.Y 2025-26.

“Appeal against rejection of the assessee u/s 80G(5) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] is incorrect and unlawful. That the trust doing genuine activities but having some health issues and change their CA, CIT Inspector not give chance to complete the file, condonation letter attached and other particular having attach.”

3.

At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the grounds of appeal and reply were not considered properly and proper opportunity was not given after manual visit of the assessee. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the notice is bad in law as it lacks proper information and wrong section has been mentioned. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued that inspite of providing all details required, the ld. CIT(E) was not satisfied and ultimately rejected the application filed by the assessee u/s 80G(5) of the Act.

4.

Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. In view of the above submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice and balance of convenience, the issue should be set aside to the Page 2 of 4 [A.Y. 2025-26] Matribhoomi Sewa Sanstha file of the ld. CIT(E) for examining the issue properly. We therefore, consider it fit to set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and direct the ld. CIT(E) to give a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and examine and adjudicate on the impugned issue afresh. The assessee is also directed to furnish all documents/evidence as and when required by the ld. CIT(E) for examination. In view of the same, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 06.01.2026.

More judgments on Section 80G(5)

All 2,236 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →