Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were against orders of the CIT(Exemption) which declined Section 12A registration and denied Section 80G deduction. The initial application for 12A registration was rejected, and a subsequent one also failed due to not being in the prescribed format.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had failed to provide all requisite details during the hearings and acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps. Consequently, the appeals were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the denial of 12A registration and consequential 80G deduction was proper, considering the circumstances and the possibility of communication gaps.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARAAND
Date of hearing 13.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 13.01.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s three appeals 5226 & 5227/Del/2025 for assessment years 2025-26 and 2024-25, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [in short, the “CIT(E)”], Delhi’s orders dated 18.06.2025 and 06.09.2024 having DINs and Notice no. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2025- 26/1077155164(1), ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024- 25/1068425941(1) and ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024- 25/1068426006(1) involving proceedings under section 12AB and 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Delays of 270 days in filing the assessee’s appeals & 5227/Del/2025 are condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
It is next noticed with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the assesseee’s instant three appeals 5226 & 5227/Del/2025 are directed against the learned CIT(Exemption)’s as many orders hereinabove declining section 12A registration forming subject matter of adjudication in the former twin cases, and its third appeal is preferred against denial of the consequential section 80G deduction herein.
Learned CIT(DR) clarifies at the outset that after the assessee’s former section 12A registration application got rejected; it chose to file yet another application which has met the same fate
2 | P a g e for the sole reason of non-institution thereof in the prescribed format. This is what leaves thee assessee aggrieved.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective rival pleadings. Suffice to say, it has come on record that the learned CIT(E)’s former 12A as well as 80G orders hold that the assessee failed to file all the requisite details during the course of hearing. We observe in this factual backdrop that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels could not be altogether ruled out. We accordingly deem it appropriate to restore all the assessee’s three appeals back to the CIT(E) for its afresh appropriate adjudication within three effective opportunities of hearing, in consequential proceedings.