Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed applications for registration/approval under sections 80G and 12A of the Income Tax Act. Despite being issued questionnaires and opportunities, the assessee failed to furnish details, leading to the rejection of applications by the CIT(E).
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the CIT(E). However, in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for a fresh decision, affording the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of registration/approval by the CIT(E) was justified due to non-compliance, and if principles of natural justice were violated.
Sections Cited
80G(5)(iv)(B), 12A(1)(ac)(iii), 80G, 12AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : E : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:
The appeals filed by the assessee is against the order dated 24.07.2025 of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(E)] rejecting the applications in Form 10AB for registration/approval u/s 80G(5)(iv)(B) and u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii), respectively, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed applications dated 21.02.2025 in Form 10AB for approval/registration u/s 80G(5)(iv)(B) and u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. The assessee was issued a questionnaire dated 01.04.2025 with the request to furnish certain details, documents, clarification in respect of the claim for approval u/s 80G of the Act. The assessee failed to file the details. Another opportunity, vide letter dated 01.07.2025 was afforded. Final opportunity, vide notice dated 11.07.2025 was granted, but, the assessee failed to comply with the notices. Resultantly, the ld.CIT(A), vide order dated 24.07.2025, rejected the applications.
Being aggrieved, the appellant-assessee preferred the present appeals with the following grounds:-
“1. That the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) has grossly erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application for registration u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by holding that the appellant failed to comply with the notices issued, without appreciating that the reply to the notice was duly submitted in physical form at the office of the CIT (Exemptions), which has been completely ignored in the impugned order.
2. That the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) has erred In passing the impugned order dated 24.07.2025 in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice, as no cognizance was taken of the reply and documentary evidence filed by the appellant in response to the notice dated 11.07.2025, thereby rendering the order non-speaking, mechanical, and unsustainable in law.
3. The Ld. CIT (Exemptions) has erred in rejecting the application in Form 10AB on the alleged ground of non-submission of details, even though the appellant had submitted a comprehensive reply along with supporting documents. The rejection without issuing any deficiency notice or affording an effective opportunity to rectify alleged shortcomings is arbitrary and contrary to law.
4. The Ld. CIT (Exemptions) has erred in cancelling the existing provisional registration granted vide order dated 26.10.2023, without issuing any separate show cause notice or affording any opportunity of being heard to the appellant, in violation of the settled principles of natural justice.
5. The Ld. CIT (Exemptions) has erred in denying the registration under section 80G despite the fact that the appellant is a genuine charitable institution engaged in cultural and welfare activities and has fulfilled all statutory conditions for registration. The order fails to consider the material on record and is thus vitiated by non-application of mind.
6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, as may be deemed fit and necessary in the interest of justice.”
“1. That the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) has grossly erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by holding that the appellant failed to comply with the notices issued, without appreciating that the reply to the notice was duly submitted in physical form at the office of the CIT (Exemptions), which has been completely ignored in the impugned order.
2. That the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) has erred In passing the impugned order dated 24.07.2025 in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice, as no cognizance was taken of the reply and documentary evidence filed by the appellant in response to the notice dated 11.07.2025, thereby rendering the order non-speaking, mechanical, and unsustainable in law.
3. The Ld. CIT (Exemptions) has erred in rejecting the application in Form 10AB on the alleged ground of non-submission of details, even though the appellant had submitted a comprehensive reply along with supporting documents. The rejection without issuing any deficiency notice or affording an effective opportunity to rectify alleged shortcomings is arbitrary and contrary to law.
The Ld. CIT (Exemptions) has erred in cancelling the existing provisional registration granted vide order dated 25.10.2023, without issuing any separate show cause notice or affording any opportunity of being heard to the appellant, in violation of the settled principles of natural justice.
5. The Ld. CIT (Exemptions) has erred in denying the registration under section 12AB despite the fact that the appellant is a genuine 3
charitable institution engaged in cultural and welfare activities and has fulfilled all statutory conditions for registration. The order fails to consider the material on record and is thus vitiated by non-application of mind. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, as may be deemed fit and necessary in the interest of justice.”
4. At the time of hearing, none appeared for the appellant-assessee.
The ld. DR submitted that the assessee failed to comply with the notices.
From examination of the record, it is crystal clear that the appellant- assessee failed to file the details despite opportunities vide letter dated 01.04.2025, 01.07.2025 and 11.07.2025. In view of the above material facts and in the interest of substantial justice, it is considered expedient to set aside the orders of the ld.CIT(A) and restore the matter to the files of the ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, after affording fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.