PATHOLOGY EDUCATION SOCIETY,DELHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3333/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 October 2025Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the issues.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed applications for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(E) rejected both applications due to non-submission of required details and information.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) properly considered the assessee's submissions and provided a reasonable opportunity before rejecting the applications for registration and approval.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”, DELHI

Before: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL,

Hearing: 18.09.2025Pronounced: 18.09.2025

ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM : These appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders both dated 21.03.2025 of the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Delhi passed u/s. 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and u/s. 80G of the Act respectively.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed applications in Form 10AB for seeking registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and application for grant of approval u/s. 80G of the Act. The applicant was issued notices on 14.10.2024 with a request to furnish certain details / documents/ clarifications in support of its claim of registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii). The case was fixed for compliance on 29.10.2024, in response to the same, the application submitted part reply dated 28.11.2024. The applicant was further afforded another opportunity vide letter dated 6.3.2025 to submit certain details / information documents, but the applicant did not submit the same and accordingly, ld. CIT(E) rejected the application of the Applicant for grant of registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and also rejected the approval u/s. 80G. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the applicant, despite issue of notice for hearing, hence, we are proceeding exparte qua the applicant, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.

4.

Ld. DR relied upon the orders of Ld. CIT(E).

5.

We have heard Ld. DR and perused the records. We find that it was the contention of the applicant that CIT(E) has not considered the details submitted by the assessee in response to their query / questionnaire and not responded and / or asked for any further details. It was also contended that the assessee was neither given proper / sufficient /fair / reasonable and meaningful opportunity and time nor discussed the case on the lines stated to explain / clarify the things on any unilateral reservation/ observation. Keeping in view of the aforesaid factual matrix and in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to consider the issues afresh in both the appeals, in accordance with law by considering all the relevant documents, evidences etc. to be filed by the applicant. However, Applicant is directed to furnish the complete details/ evidences before the Ld. CIT(E) in accordance with law. Ld. DR fairly agreed to this proposition. We hold and direct accordingly.

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 →