Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's twin appeals were filed against the order of the CIT(Exemption) rejecting their applications for registration under Section 80G and Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) proceeded ex-parte against the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and noted that the CIT(E) had proceeded ex-parte. Considering the possibility of communication gaps, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals should be restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication when the CIT(E) proceeded ex-parte against the assessee due to possible communication gaps.
Sections Cited
80G, 12AB(1)(b)(ii), 147, 148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
Asstt. Year: 2025-26 : Asstt. Year: 2025-26 Vs Jan Sandesh, CIT(Exemption), F-360, New Seemapuri, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110095 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAAJ8922B Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: These assessee’s twin appeals in & 4033/Del/2025 for Assessment Years 2025-26, arise against the CIT (Exemption), Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1070453422(1) & 1070453365(1) dated 19.11.2024, in proceedings u/s 80G and 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
& 4033/Del/2025 Jan Sandesh 3. Delay of 141 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(E)’s detailed discussion has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee thereby rejecting it’s section 80G and 12AB(1)(b)(ii) registration application.
Ms. Rajinder Kaur vehemently argues during the course of hearing in support of CIT(E)’s findingS that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting it’s case and therefore, it’s instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stand and are of the considered view that since the CIT(E) has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, possibility of some communication gaps between the taxpayer and the arguing counsel could not be altogether ruled out.
Faced with this situation and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeals back to the CIT(E) for it’s afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
These assessee’s twin appeals & 4033/Del/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 20/11/2025.