AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:
The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 02.03.2026 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] u/s 12AB/(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) rejecting application for registration and cancelling provisional registration.
Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(E) failed to appreciate that appellant/assessee had complied with notice dated 13.02.2026 by filing written reply dated 26.02.2026. Ld. CIT(E) vide ex parte order 02.03.2026 rejected application for renewal and cancelled provisional registration in violation of principle of natural justice.
Ld. Departmental Representative relied on impugned order.
From examination of record in light of rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(E) vide impugned order dated 02.03.2026 rejected application of the assessee for registration u/s 12AB/(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. The appellant/assessee claims that CIT(E) in violation of principles of natural justice failed to consider written submissions filed vide reply on 26.02.2026.
In view of above material facts and in interest of justice, impugned order dated 02.03.2026 is set aside and the matter is restored to the files of Ld. CIT(E) for afresh decision in accordance with law after affording fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.