Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 04 ITAT CK 3485

Bharat Gaurav Award Foundation vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi · Decided on 21 April 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satbeer Singh Godara, J · Naveen Chandra, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
ITA Nos. 3038 & 3039/Del/2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 345 words

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

These assessee’s twin appeals for assessment years 2023-24 , arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [in short, the “CIT(E)”], Delhi’s orders dated 23.05.2023 & 15.05.2023 having DINs & Orders Nos. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2023-24/1053094837(1) & ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2023-24/1052839291(1), involving proceedings under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G & section 12A(1)(ac)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

The asseessee’s identical delay of 645 days in filing of both these appeals is hereby condoned in the larger interest of justice and in the light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) impugned twin orders have been passed ex-parte.

3.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(E) in its detailed discussion has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee thereby rejecting both of its sections 12A and 80G registration in issue.

4.

The Revenue during the course of hearing vehemently argues in support of CIT(E)’s findings that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting it’s case.

5.

We have given my thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stands and are of the considered view that since the CIT(E) has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, possibility of some communication gaps between the taxpayer, auditor and the arguing counsel in such an instance could not be altogether ruled out. Faced with this situation, in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(E) for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the cases at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

All other remaining issues between the parties are kept open at this stage.

6.

These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 3038 & 3039/Del/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.