VIDYASAGAR JEEV DAYA PARIVAR TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), DELHI
ITA Nos.4551 & 4552/Del/2025
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT
AND SHRISANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4551 & 4552/Del/2025
िनधा रणवष /Assessment Year: 2024-25
VIDYASAGAR JEEV DAYA PARIVAR
TRUST,
R 117, Lower Ground Floor,
Khirki Extensiion, Malviya Nagar, Delhi.
PAN No.AADIV8524B
बनाम
Vs.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
(EXEMPTION),
Civic Centre, Minto Road,
Delhi.
अपीलाथ Appellant
यथ/Respondent
Assessee by Shri Ankit Jain, CA
Revenue by Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT DR
सुनवाईकतारीख/ Date of hearing:
18.12.2025
उोषणाकतारीख/Pronouncement on 18.12.2025
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.
2. ITA No.4551/Del/2025 pertains to an order dated 19.06.2025
through which an application u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(hereafter as “the Act”) has been rejected. ITA No.4552/Del/2025 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 ITA Nos.4551 & 4552/Del/2025
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 ITA Nos.4551 & 4552/Del/2025
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 (MAHAVIR SINGH) (SANJAY AWASTHI)
VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 02.01.2026
*Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S.