AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:
The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessees against the order dated 30.10.2025, passed by CIT(Exemption), Delhi u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] for A.Y. 2026-27.
The assessees has raised following grounds of appeal:
"1.In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the order passed by the Id. CIT (Exemption), Delhi rejecting application for registration of the trust u/s. 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is void ab initio and in violation of principles of natural justice hence being bad in law.
2.In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of appellant, the Id. CIT (Exemption), Delhi has erred in rejecting application for registration of the trust u/s. 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of incorrect reasons/observations.
3.In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of appellant, the Id. CIT (Exemption), Delhi has erred in not granting registration u/s 80G(5) of the Act to the appellant on the basis that the appellant has not provided the requisite details even when the appellant has duly filed all the necessary replies in response to notice issued by Id CITE).
4.The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal."
Brief facts are that the assessee filed an application in Form 10AB on 01.03.2025 seeking approval u/s 80G(5) first proviso clause (ii) of the Act. In response to the notice issued by CIT(E) seeking details, only part submissions were filed on 06.08.2025. Ld. CIT(E) noted that proper details of donors were not provided and therefore, he rejected the assessee's application vide order dated 26.09.2025. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us, Id. AR has submitted that the applicant had submitted the details called for and has requested for another opportunity to furnish further details as required by Id. CIT(E). Ld. DR has relied on the order of the Id. CIT(E).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.