AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is a batch of two appeals pertaining to the same assessee. While ITA No.1137/Del/2026 pertains to an order u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”); ITA No.1138/Del/2026 pertains to an application u/s 80G of the Act being rejected. Since both these cases are inter-connected, hence, they are being disposed of through a single order.
On the last date of hearing, none attended on behalf of the assessee, but it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication with the help of Ld. DR.
In this case, in ITA No.1137/Del/2026 pertaining to an order u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, it is seen that the Ld. CIT(Exemptions) had granted several opportunities of hearing but the same were not availed of by the assessee. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(Exemptions) rejected the application filed u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act mainly on the ground of non-persuasion.
Similarly in ITA No.1138/Del/2026, the assessee’s application for approval u/s 80G(5)(ii) of the Act was rejected on the ground of non-persuasion as also on the ground that the application u/s 12AB of the Act had been rejected.
The Appellant has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging the denial of opportunity and also stating that detailed replies had already been filed but the same were not considered by the Ld. CIT(Exemptions), Delhi.
The Ld. DR ably assisted the Bench and pointed out that from a reading of the impugned orders it could not be ascertained whether the assessee had filed any reply or even whether there was any compliance by the assessee to the opportunities provided by the Ld. CIT(Exemptions), Delhi.
We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. DR and have gone through the documents before us. We feel that in the interests of substantive justice, both these matters deserve to be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication and consideration. To this extent, we set aside the impugned orders in both the appeals.
In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes having been remitted back.