SHRI BHAGWAN RISHABDEV CHARITABLE TRUST,DELHI vs. ITO, TRUST WARD(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the CIT(E) had not given adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the ITAT restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) with directions to re-examine the applications after providing a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who is to furnish all necessary documents.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Shri Bhagwan Rishabdev Charitable Trust, filed applications for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and renewal under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, which were rejected by the CIT(E) without providing an opportunity of being heard. The CIT(E) stated that the assessee failed to provide complete details to verify the genuineness of the trust's activities.
What were the issues?
The key issue was the rejection of registration and renewal applications for a charitable trust by the CIT(E) without granting an adequate opportunity of being heard, impacting the verification of the genuineness of the trust's activities.
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: MS. MADHUMITA ROY, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(E), Delhi dated 27.09.2023 rejecting the application for grant of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] and renewal of registration u/s 12A of the Act respectively.
Page 1 of 5 & 287/DEL/2025 Shri Bhagwan Rishabdev Charitable Trust Vs. ITO 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.
The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. The reasons for delay in filing appeal stated by the assessee seem to be reasonable. Accordingly, we condone the delay.
At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application for grant of registration u/s 12A(1)ac(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] as the assessee has failed to file complete details, information and documents required by the notices to verify the genuineness of the activities of the trust.
The assessee also filed Form 10AB and applied for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. The ld. CIT (Exemption) issued notices and asked to furnish several documents to which the assessee filed its reply by furnishing the documents as called for.
Page 2 of 5 & 287/DEL/2025 Shri Bhagwan Rishabdev Charitable Trust Vs. ITO 7. The CIT (Exemption) rejected the registration applications vide order dated 27.09.2023 without granting any opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The assessee is aggrieved and has come in appeal before us and submitted that the ld. CIT(E) did not consider the reply of the assessee nor its annexures and passed order. The ld. CIT(A) was not right in rejecting the applications of the assessee for registration 12AB(1)(b)(ii) and application for renewal u/s 12A of the Act.
Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the ld. CIT(E).
We have given a thoughtful consideration to the order of the CIT (Exemption). We find that the assessee has filed several documents and evidences before us, which were filed by the assessee before the CIT(E), to establish the genuineness of the activities of the trust. The rejection of grant of registration by ld. CIT(A) and renewal of registration is not justified as 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). 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.
Page 3 of 5 & 287/DEL/2025 Shri Bhagwan Rishabdev Charitable Trust Vs. ITO
In the result, appeals of assessee in and 287/DEL/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 04.09.2025.
More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sevasetu Foundation, Vadodara vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)…ITA 3149/AHD/2026[NA]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Sevasetu Foundation, Vadodara vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)…ITA 3148/AHD/2026[NA]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Sanskardham Nandan, Mehsana vs CIT(Exemption), AhmedabadITA 2980/AHD/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- D vs Welfare Foundation, Thanevs.Income Tax…ITA 6191/MUM/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026