M/S HINDRISE SOCIAL WELFARE FOUNDATION,NOIDA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) ought to have provided a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for a rehearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee's applications for registration u/s 12AA and approval u/s 80G were rejected by the CIT(E). The assessee contended that the rejection orders were passed ex-parte without a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(E) properly afforded an opportunity of being heard before rejecting the applications for registration and approval.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
The above captioned two separate appeals by the assessee are preferred against 2 separate orders of the CIT(E), Lucknow dated 28.10.2022 rejecting application for registration u/s 12AA of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] and approval u/s 80G of the Act respectively.
Since common grievance is involved in the captioned appeals, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that both the applications have been rejected by the CIT(E) by framing order ex- parte and without affording any reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The ld. counsel for the assessee prayed for restoration of the appeals.
The ld. DR fairly conceded that the orders of the ld. CIT(E) are ex- parte.
We have carefully perused the orders of the CIT(E). We find that the ld. CIT(E) has sent a detailed questionnaire to the Assessing Officer but since the assessee, for some reason, could not attend the proceedings, the applications were rejected. 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 both the appeals to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to rehear the applications after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee in /DEL/2023 and 1793/DEL/2023 are allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 17.10.2023.
More judgments on Section 12AA
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2448/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2447/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Sri Jawahar Education Trust, Chamarajanagar vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 1…ITA 1735/BANG/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), MohaliITA 636/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 635/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026