VIDYASAGAR JEEV DAYA PARIVAR TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4551/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 December 2025AY 2024-25Bench: SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRISANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the CIT(E) had not duly considered the submissions made by the assessee during the hearing before passing the rejection orders. Consequently, the ITAT set aside both impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing that the assessee be given an adequate opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vidyasagar Jeev Daya Parivar Trust, filed two applications: one for registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and another for regular registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act. Both applications were rejected by the CIT(E) on 19.06.2025, with the Section 80G rejection linked to the denial of Section 12AB approval, reportedly due to the assessee's insufficient response to show-cause notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications for Section 80G and Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)/12AB registration without properly considering the assessee's submissions and providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G,Section 80G(5),Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi),Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI

Before: SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SHRISANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jain, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT DR
Hearing: 18.12.2025

सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing: 18.12.2025 18.12.2025 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

These are a batch of two appeals of the same assessee and since the issues are interconnected, hence, both these appeals are being disposed of through a single order.

(hereafter as “the Act”) has been rejected. arises from order dated 19.06.2025, through which an application for regular registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act has been rejected. It is seen that in the order rejecting the registration u/s 12AB of the Act it is mentioned that certain queries were raised in the form of a show-cause notice to the assessee which were apparently not responded to appropriately. Consequently, the application for registration u/s 80G(5) of the Act was also rejected since the application u/s 12AB of the Act was not found fit for approval.

2.1 The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds in both the appeals challenging the action of Ld. CIT(E) on the ground that the submissions filed during the course of hearing before him were not considered and eventually one-sided orders have been passed in both the matters.

3.

Before us the Ld. AR pointed out various portions from the two impugned orders and stated that the Ld. CIT(E) has not considered the submissions made before him and hence has passed adverse orders in both the matters. It was a prayer that these matters may be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) so that the assessee gets a chance to present the documents and evidences available with him and the Ld. CIT(E) has an opportunity to reconsider the same and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in both the cases.

3.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below in both the matters.

4.

We have considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the documents before us.On perusal of the impugned orders it is 2 revealed that the assessee’s submissions have not been duly considered.

Therefore, there is a justifiable presumption that such submissions have not been considered adequately by the Ld.CIT(E). Accordingly, we set aside both the impugned orders and remand the same back to the file of Ld.CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The Ld. CIT(E) would give adequate opportunity of being heard and the assessee would be expected to avail of such opportunities.

5.

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.12.2025

More judgments on Section 80G

All 6,482 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →