AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 1186 & 1187/Del/2026 for assessment year 2025-26, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [in short, the “CIT(E)”], Delhi’s orders, both dated 25.09.2024 having DINs and orders no. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1069085044(1) and ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1069085115(1), involving proceedings under sections 12AB and 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2 For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 429 days in filing both the instant appeals are condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
Learned counsel submits that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not appear to plead and prove all the relevant facts in the CIT(E); and; therefore, the matters may be restored back to the CIT(E) for his afresh adjudication. The Revenue vehemently supports the learned lower authority’s action rejecting the assessee’s section 12A registration and section 80G approval on merits.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps between the taxpayer, auditor and the arguing counsel in such an instance could not be altogether ruled out. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant cases back to the CIT(E) for their afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing, at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 1186 & 1187/Del/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.