PUSA BANGIYA SANGEET SABHA,DELHI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 869 days, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, emphasizing substantial justice. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E) and remanded the matter for fresh decision after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal after a delay of 869 days, contending that no notice or the impugned order was served. The assessee only became aware of the assessment order for the year 2022-23 through the e-portal. The assessee's application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) was rejected for non-compliance with notices and failure to produce documents.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the order rejecting the assessee's application for registration was passed in violation of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji3,926 citing167 ITR 471 · 1987 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) –Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(E)’ for short), dated 14/09/2022.
There is a delay of 869 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an affidavit contending that the However, no notice has been served on the Assessee by the Ld. CIT(E) and even the impugned order has not been served on the Assessee, which is evident from the e- portal. The Assessee came to know only when the assessment order for the year 2022-23 served on the Assessee. Thus, sought for condoning the delay.
1. there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the present Appeal on delay in latches.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record on the issue of delay in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee contended that the no notice has been served on the Assessee by the Ld.
CIT(E) and even the impugned order has not been served on the Assessee, which is evident from the e-portal. The Assessee came to know only when the assessment order for the year 2022-23 served on the Assessee.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 869 days in filing the present Appeal.
12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short). The said application has been rejected vide order dated 14/09/2022 on the ground that the Appellant failed to comply with the notices and failed to produce requisite documents in support of the claim, which is under challenged before us.
The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the order impugned has been passed in violation of principals of natural justice, the Ld. CIT(E) has not provided the opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, thus sought for allowing the Appeal.
Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Appellant has not complied with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) and not produced any documents in support of the claim, thus the order impugned has been rightly passed by the Ld. CIT(E), therefore, sought for dismissal of the present Appeal.
We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the order impugned, the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application for want of documents to substantiate the claim of the Appellant and the Appellant has not been heard before passing the order impugned. Thus, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. decide the applications afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. The Appellant is also at liberty to produce any/all documents in support of its claim.
In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26th September, 2025
More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)
- Sanskardham Nandan, Mehsana vs CIT(Exemption), AhmedabadITA 2980/AHD/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Ss Early Learning Society, Hyderabad vs CIT (Exemption), HyderabadITA 1208/HYD/2025[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Lalaram Gupta Charitable Trust, Agra vs ITO, Exemption, AgraITA 660/AGR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Lalaram Charitable Trust, Agra vs ITO, Exemption, AgraITA 659/AGR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 592/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
