Bharat Yadav Foundation Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Delhi)
12AB Registration Rejection Set Aside: Delhi ITAT Remands Case to CIT(E) for Fresh Consideration After Proper Hearing
Delhi ITAT, Delhi Bench ‘E’, in The Bharat Yadav Foundation Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITA No.3253/Del/2025; AY 2025-26; order dated 19-12-2025), set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(E), Chandigarh, rejecting registration u/s 12AB. The Tribunal noted that although the assessee-trust had filed replies and documents to the initial notice and also sought adjournment in response to the subsequent notice, the CIT(E) proceeded to deny registration primarily on the ground of non-furnishing of complete details, without examining the material already on record.
Holding that denial of registration without granting adequate and effective opportunity of being heard violates principles of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to reconsider the 12AB application afresh, after examining the objects and activities of the trust and after providing proper opportunity to the assessee. The appeal was accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal filed by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh [herein after referred as “CIT(E)”] dated 19.03.2025 in denying registration u/s.12AB of the Act. The assessee has raised the following common grounds against rejection of registration u/s.12AB of the Act by the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) :
1 That the order of the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) is against law and facts.
2. That the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application of appellant for registration u/s 12A/12AB of the Act, although the appellant fulfills all the conditions laid down in the Act and all the objects and activities of the appellant are charitable in nature.
3. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption) erred in rejecting the application for registration u/s 12A/12AB by passing an ex-parte order, although the appellant had duly filed requisite reply and documents in response to first query letter and had duly filed adjournment application in response to second query letter. .
4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, amend or withdraw any of the ground of appeal at the time of hearing.
2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the Ld. CIT (Exemption) erred in rejecting the application for registration u/s.12A/12AB by passing order without giving sufficient opportunity to the Assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the issue may be restore to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for reconsideration of the application filed by the assessee.
