KHUSHHAALI HAPPINESS FOUNDATION,DELHI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7322/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 April 20263 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to produce documents and decide the application on its merits. The impugned orders were set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Khushali Happiness Foundation, filed applications for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval under Section 12G(5) of the Income Tax Act. These applications were rejected by the CIT(E) without verifying documents or providing an opportunity for further submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications for registration and approval without providing an opportunity to the assessee to produce necessary documents and make submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii),Section 12G(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Adv & Ms. Airik
Hearing: 23/03/2026Pronounced: 15/04/2026

ORDER 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 29/09/2025 wherein the application filed by the Assessee for grant of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) and application for grant of approval 12G(5)of the Act have been rejected.

2.

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

3.

The Ld. Department's Representative vehemently submitted that the appellant has failed to substantiate the claim in support of the applications filed before the authority below, 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 the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the order impugned, the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application on the ground thatthe applicant has failed to file documentary evidences to enable me to satisfy about the genuineness& commencement of its charitable activities and to verify these activities are in consonance with its objects. Considering the fact that the Assessee is claimed to be conducting charitable activities, the Ld. Ld. CIT(E) should have provided opportunity to the appellant to produce the documents and should have decided the application on its merit. Thus, we set aside the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and remand the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to decide the applications afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. The Appellant is also at liberty to produce all the requisite documents to substantiate the claim of the Appellant.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 15th April, 2026

More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)

All 1,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →