KRISH FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5437/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 November 2025Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to produce documents and that the CIT(E) had not properly verified the submitted documents. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The Assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(E) rejecting their applications for registration under sections 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) and 80G of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected the applications citing that the expenditures were not aligned with the trust's claim and due to non-verification of documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications for registration without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and verifying the documents properly.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B),Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

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

Hearing: 24/11/2025Pronounced: 26/11/2025

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: These two appeals are filed by the Assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(E)’ for short) dated 27/09/2024, wherein the applications filed by the Assessee for grant of registration u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) have been rejected.

2.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the orders impugned rejecting the applications have been passed erroneously, wherein Ld. CIT(E)has not verified the documents produced by the Appellant and without providing sufficient opportunity to the appellant to produce further documents and submissions, the orders impugned has been passed. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeals.

3.

The Ld. Department's Representative vehemently submitted that the appellant has failed to reply to the query raised by the Ld. CIT(E)

1.

and applicant could not establish that the expenditures incurred by the Appellant for charitable purpose, therefore, the applications have been rightly rejected which requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal. Thus, relying on the orders of the Lower Authority, sought for dismissal of the Appeals.

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(E) issued notice dated 16/04/2024 requiring the appellant to submit a note on activities carried out by the Trust during the last three Financial Years. The Appellant replied to the same, however, the same has been rejected by the Ld. CIT(E)on the ground that expenditure incurred under various heads, specially administrative expenses, are not in alignment with the above claim of the trust since as per financial statements no expenses has been incurred on training, food distribution, education etc. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we remand the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a liberty to the Appellant to produce all the documents in support of its claim and we hereby direct the Ld. CIT(E) to consider the applications afresh in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Appellant.

5.

In the result, the appeals of the Appellantare partly allowed for statistical purpose.

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

All 110 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →