Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an application for renewal of registration under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected the application, holding that the assessee did not conclusively prove the genuineness of its activities.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had not given sufficient time to the assessee to present its case and had not examined the submitted documents. The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E) for rehearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) properly considered the evidence and provided adequate opportunity for the assessee to prove the genuineness of its activities for renewal of registration u/s 80G.
Sections Cited
80G, 10AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. ld. CIT(E) dated 16.06.2025 pertaining to A.Y 2025-26.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed an application in form No.10AB seeking renewal of registration u/s 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short]. The ld. CIT(E) had issued notice for explanation of certain issues to which the assessee replied on merits. The ld. CIT(E), however, considered the submissions filed by the genuineness of the activities and rejected the application for renewal of registration u/s 80G of the Act.
Now the assessee is in appeal before us.
Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the ld. CIT(A) was not right in rejecting the application of the assessee for renewal of registration u/s 80G of the Act. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the appeal was rejected by CIT(E) because according to him the trust could not conclusively prove genuineness of activities.
The ld AR further submitted that during hearing the assessee filed all necessary documents as required by the ld CIT(E) and there was enough material on record to prove the genuineness of the society and activities carried by it.
Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the ld. CIT(E).
(Exemption). Firstly, finding the reasons stated by the assessee to be plausible, we condone the delay in filing the application u/s 80G of the Act. Secondly, the assessee has furnished several documents and evidences, which were furnished before the ld. CIT(E) before us to establish the genuineness of the activities of the trust. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(E) has neither given sufficient time to assessee to present its case nor has examined the documents/ evidence submitted by him.
In view of the above factual position, we are of the considered view that the CIT(E) ought to have given a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the issue of renewal of registration u/s 80G of the Act to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to rehear and consider all the documents submitted along with the application after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish documents and evidence as required by the ld. CIT(E). The ground of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 08.10.2025.