SPORTSEED FOUNDATION,DELHI vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION 2(2), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4848/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 December 2025AY 2024-25Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER, SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s rejection was not justified as the assessee was incorporated recently and could not have commenced activities. The issue of registration was restored to the file of CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed applications for registration under Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) and approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected these applications citing that the assessee had not carried out any expenditure or charitable activities and had not furnished bills and vouchers.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of registration and approval applications by the CIT(E) was justified given the nascent stage of the assessee's activities. Whether the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to present its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii),Section 80G(5)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT- DR
Hearing: 24.11.2025Pronounced: 10.12.2025

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 4848/DEL/2025
ITA No. 4849/DEL/2025

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

preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(E), Delhi dated 21.12.2023 rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii) and Page 1 of 5 1961 [the Act, for short].

2.

Since both the captioned appeals were heard together and pertain to same assessee, they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We decided to proceed 3. ex-parte with assistance of the ld DR. The ld. DR was heard at length and the case records were carefully perused.

4.

There is a delay of 529 days in filing the appeals. The reasons cited by the assessee in the application filed by the assessee seem to be plausible. We, therefore, condone the delay.

5.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed application for registration u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Act and Form 10AB for approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the of the Act. The ld. CIT (Exemption) issued notices alongwith questionnaire and requested the assessee to furnish several documents to which the assessee filed its reply by furnishing few details and balance sheet.

6.

The CIT (Exemption) rejected the registration applications vide order dated 21.12.2023 on the grounds that the assessee has not carried out any expenditure, has not carried out any charitable activities and has not furnished any bills and vouchers

Page 2 of 5 the say of the assessee that the ld. CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Act as well as application for grant of approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act on the grounds that the assessee has not carried out any expenditure, has not carried out any charitable activities and has not furnished any bills and vouchers. The assessee pointed out that the assessee was incorporated only on 26.05.2022 and, therefore, could not commence the charitable activities in F.Y. 2022-23 itself.

8.

Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the ld. CIT(E).

9.

We have given a thoughtful consideration to the order of the CIT (Exemption). We find that at the time of registration, the ld. CIT(E) is required to examine the genuineness of the activities of the institution.

We find the rejection of grant of approval for registration by ld. CIT(E) is not justified. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit restore the issue of registration to the file of the ld. CIT(E) to take into consideration the nascent stage of the institution. The assessee is directed to furnish the necessary documents for verification and the ld. CIT(E) is directed to examine the same for grant of registration u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii) and for grant of approval u/s 80G(5)(iii)

Page 3 of 5 sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

10.

In the result, appeals of assessee in and 4849/DEL/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 10.12.2025.

More judgments on Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)

All 150 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →