A.D. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,FARIDABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1691/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 February 2026Bench: us. Upon perusal of para 3.2 of order passed by Ld. CIT(E) rejecting registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii), it could be seen that the assessee failed to supply the requisite information / documents as called for by Ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, the twin registrations were denied against which the assessee is in further appeals before us. The Ld. AR stated that the assessee is in a position to substantiate its registration applications and accordingly, prayed for another opportunity of hearing which ha2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, applying principles of natural justice, set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(E). The registration applications under sections 12(1)(ac)(ii) and 80G(5)(iii) are restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee is directed to furnish the required information and substantiate its applications.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s A.D. Educational Society, had its applications for registration under sections 12(1)(ac)(ii) and 80G(5)(iii) rejected by the CIT(E) due to failure to supply requisite information/documents. The assessee subsequently filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, seeking an opportunity to substantiate its registration applications.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of registration applications under sections 12(1)(ac)(ii) and 80G(5)(iii) by the CIT(E) for non-submission of documents was justified, and if the assessee should be afforded another opportunity to furnish the necessary information.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12(1)(ac)(ii),Section 80G(5)(iii),Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)

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 MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Hearing: 19.02.2026Pronounced: 24.02.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.1691/CHANDI/2025
ITA No.1692/CHANDI/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by rejection of registration application u/s 12(1)(ac)(ii) and consequential rejection of application seeking registration u/s 80G(5)(iii) vide impugned orders dated 03-11-2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh, [CIT(E)], the assessee is in further appeals before us. Upon perusal of para 3.2 of order passed by Ld. CIT(E) rejecting registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii), it could be seen that the assessee failed to supply the requisite information / documents as called for by Ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, the twin registrations were denied against which the assessee is in further appeals before us. The Ld. AR stated that the assessee is in a position to substantiate its registration applications and accordingly, prayed for another opportunity of hearing which has been opposed by Ld. CIT-DR.

2.

Keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, we accept the prayer of Ld. AR. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the twin registration applications are restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee is directed to plead and prove its applications forthwith.

More judgments on Section 80G(5)(iii)

All 687 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →