Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a Trust, filed applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. The CIT(E) rejected both applications as the assessee failed to respond to a questionnaire. The assessee claimed family exigencies prevented timely submission of information.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted relevant documents before them that were not filed before the CIT(E). It was also observed that the CIT(E) had not afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications for registration and approval without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in light of new evidence presented before the Tribunal.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
Both the above captioned separate appeals by the assessee are preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(E), Delhi dated 20.06.2025 rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) and u/s 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short].
& 5183/DEL/2025 Sajag Sarthak Foundation Vs. CIT(E) 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.
Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. Relevant documentary evidence brought on record duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust.
The assessee filed an application dated 07.12.2024 in Form 10AB for grant of approval u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee also filed an application dated 10.12.2024 in Form 10AB for grant of approval u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The applicant was issued questionnaire to furnish certain details/documents/clarifications in support of its claim of approval u/s 12AB and 80G of the Act. However, there was no response from the side of the assessee. The CIT(E) therefore, rejected both the application filed in Form 10AB seeking for grant of approval u/s 12AB and u/s 80G of the Act.
The assessee is aggrieved and has come in appeal before us. The ld AR of the assessee stated that due to family exigencies, certain information could not be submitted. In absence of the information, the ld. CIT(E) passed order rejecting the registration. The assessee has filed relevant documents before us.
& 5183/DEL/2025 Sajag Sarthak Foundation Vs. CIT(E) 6. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the ld. CIT(E) and did not raise serious objection in remitting the matter back to the CIT(E).
We have given a thoughtful consideration to the order of the CIT (Exemption). We find that the assessee has filed documents and evidences before us, which could not be filed before the CIT(E), to establish the genuineness of the activities of the trust. We are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(E) has not given adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee which is apparent from the record.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore the issues to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for adjudication afresh. The assessee is directed to furnish the necessary documents for verification and the ld. CIT(E) is directed to examine the same and decide the issues as per the provisions of law after affording reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. are allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 03.10.2025.