Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 04 ITAT CK 3524

Shri Chandi Ram Educational Society vs Commissioner Of Income (Exemptions)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi · Decided on 24 April 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member · Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
ITA Nos. 2795 & 2796/Del/2026(A.Y 2026-27)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 392 words

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against ex-parte orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [in short 'the CIT(E)'] both dated 18.02.2026 rejecting assessee's applications for grant of registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), respectively.

2.

The assessee has filed an application for early fixation of the appeals. Considering the short issue involved in the appeals, with the consent of both sides, the appeals are taken up for hearing today itself for final disposal.

3.

Shri Dinesh Kumar Deshwal, appearing on behalf of the assessee, submits that the assessee’s applications for grant of registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G of the Act were rejected at the back of the assessee in ex-parte proceedings. The notice was uploaded on the Income Tax portal and sent to old, non-operative email id of the Chartered Accountant. The current functional email id was updated and was also mentioned in Form No. 10AB, however, no notice was issued to the assessee on the updated email address. Thus, no effective opportunity of making submissions was provided to the assessee by the CIT(E) before rejecting the applications for registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G of the Act. The ld. Counsel, prayed for restoring the matter to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh hearing.

4.

Per contra, Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, representing the Department supported the impugned order and submitted that the assessee failed to furnish relevant documents along with the applications for grant of registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G of the Act. Further, the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the CIT(E).

5.

Both sides heard, ex-parte impugned order examined. Considering facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to the CIT(E) for re-examination of the applications of the assessee for grant of registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G of the Act. The CIT(E) shall allow reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee before deciding the said applications, in accordance with law.

6.

The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served by the CIT(E), without fail and provide relevant documents for decision on aforesaid applications.

7.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.