Konark Foundation vs CIT(Exemption)1(1)

PER RAMIT KOCHAR, AM:

These two appeals are filed by the assessee against two separate order(s) of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Delhi [CIT(E), in short) both dated 21.11.2025( DIN& Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2025-26/1082846671(1) and ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2025-26/1082846879(1)) rejecting both the applications filed by the assessee firstly for seeking registration u/s 12A(1)(c)(ii) and secondly for approval u/s 80G respectively of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short).

Brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed an application dated 14.08.2025 in Form No.10AB for registration u/s 12A (1)(ac)(ii) of the 1961 Act , as well an separate application dated 19.08.2025 in Form No. 10AB for grant of approval u/s. 80G(5)(ii) of the 1961 Act, before learned CIT(E). The Ld. CIT(E) issued questionnaire’s dated 15.09.2025 to the assessee with the request to furnishing certain details ,document and/or clarification in support of the claim of the registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act , and secondly for grant of approval u/s 80G. The assessee did not file replies wrt questionnaire issued by ld. CIT(E).The ld. CIT(E) did not granted any further opportunity to the assesse, and dismissed both the aforesaid applications vide separate orders both dated 21.11.2025. Thus, the ld. CIT(E) vide two separate orders firstly order passed in Form No. 10AD u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) dated 21.11.2025 rejected the application of the assessee for seeking registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the 1961 Act , and secondly vide order passed in Form No. 10AD u/s 80G(5)(ii)(b)(B) rejected the application of the assessee for seeking approval u/s 80G of the 1961 Act, on the grounds that where the activities of the institution have already commenced before seeking approval, it is important for the competent authority to satisfy about genuineness of actual activities undertaken by the assessee vis-à-vis intended activities mentioned in its objects, for which the assessee is required to submit list of donors, bills/vouchers for expenses claimed , sources of funds received , list of beneficiaries etc. Since the assessee has not submitted any replies/details in response to questionnaire issued by ld. CIT(E), the ld. CIT(E) observed that genuineness of the activities of the assessee could not be ascertained, which led ld. CIT(E) to reject both the aforesaid applications.

Aggrieved, the assessee has filed two separate appeals before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that ld. CIT(E) did not give proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee , and only one notice of hearing was issued by ld. CIT(E) which was not received by the assessee. It was submitted that ld. CIT(E) dismissed both the aforesaid applications filed by the assessee ex-parte, and prayers were made to restore both the applications before ld. CIT(E) for denovo determination of both the applications viz. firstly for grant of registration u/s 12A (1)(ac)(ii) and secondly for grant of approval u/s 80G on merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

We have considered rival contentions and perused the materials available on record, which are culled out in preceding para’s of this order and are not repeated again. The assessee has filed two separate application with ld. CIT(E) for grant of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) dated 14.08.2025 , and secondly application dated 19.08.2025 for approval u/s 80G. The ld. CIT(E) issued separate notices of hearing both dated 14.11.2025 along with questionnaire seeking details from the assessee with respect to its two aforesaid applications . The assessee did not file any reply/response to the said notices before ld. CIT(E). The assessee has alleged that the said notices of hearing were not received by the assessee. The ld. CIT(E) did not issue any further notices of hearing to the assessee, and instead dismissed both the aforesaid applications vide separate orders both dated 21.11.2025 . Principle of natural justice are clearly breached. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and fairness to both parties, we are of the considered view that end of the justice will be met to send back the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for denovo determination of both the applications of the assessee firstly application dated 14.08.2025 filed for seeking registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and secondly application dated 19.08.2025 filed by the assessee for seeking approval u/s 80G of the 1961 Act. We clarify that we have not commented on the merits of the issues in both the appeal(s), and the ld. CIT(E) shall pass orders on merits in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate in the set aside remand proceedings to be conducted by the ld. CIT(E), otherwise the ld.CIT(E) shall be free to pass orders in accordance with law on merits. All the contentions are kept open. The orders of the ld. CIT(E) , both dated 21.11.2025 are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for denovo determination of the aforesaid applications on merits in accordance with law after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Evidences/ contentions filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(E) shall be admitted by the ld. CIT(E) and shall be decided on merits in accordance with law. Both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. We order accordingly.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.