Loading judgment…
Facts
M/s Daya Laxmi Charitable Trust filed an appeal against the CIT(E)'s order rejecting its application for registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) had rejected the application, citing a prior denial of registration under Section 12AB, and allegedly without issuing a proper show-cause notice or considering the trust's charitable activities. The assessee argued the order was bad in law and requested a remand.
Held
The Tribunal, considering natural justice, remanded the case back to the CIT(E) to pass a fresh order. The CIT(E) is directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who is in turn directed to cooperate by filing necessary documents and avoiding unnecessary adjournments.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the application for 80G registration without a show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing, and if the denial of 12AB registration automatically prevents 80G registration.
Sections Cited
Section 80G, Section 12AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH
Before: HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & HON’BLE SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, AM
O R D E R Krinwant Sahay (Accountant Member) 1. The Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh.
Grounds of appeal are as follows: 1. That the order of Ld. CIT(E) is bad against the law. 2. That the order of Ld. CIT(E) has wrongly rejected the application for registration u/s 80G.
1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 3. That the order of Ld. CIT(E) has wrongly passed the order without issuing any notice in lieu of the order of Hon'ble ITAT dated 02.07.2025.
4. That the order of Ld. CIT(E) has rejected our application u/s 80G without any show cause notice regarding missing regular charitable activities or any discrepancy in the submission made by the appellant.
5. That the order of Ld. CIT(E) is based on surmises and conjectures.
6. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal before the final date of hearing.
3. During proceedings before us, the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee argued that the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) rejected the application of the Assessee filed under Section 80G without issuing any show cause notice or without bringing on record regarding missing regular charitable activities or any discrepancy in the submissions made by the appellant. Therefore, the Ld. counsel argued that the rejection order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) was bad in law. Accordingly, he requested the Bench that the matter may be remanded back to the CIT(E) for the de-novo order. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on order of the Ld. CIT(E).
We have heard the arguments of the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee as well as that of the Ld. DR. We find that the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the claim of the Assessee on the ground that the said Trust was denied registration u/s 12AB, therefore, the basic requirement of registration u/s 12AB is not fulfilled for granting of 80G in this case to substantiate its claim of the charitable trust.
After considering the findings of the CIT(E) and facts of the case, keeping in view, the element of natural justice we are of this considered view that the Assessee Trust deserves one more opportunity, accordingly, we remand this case back to CIT(E) to pass a fresh order after giving adequate opportunity to the Assessee of being heard. Simultaneously, the Assessee is directed not to take unnecessary adjournments and co-operate with the revenue in filing of the necessary documents and evidences in support of its claim.
In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on 19-03-2026