AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These are a batch of two appeals of the same assessee and since the issues are interconnected, hence, both these appeals are being disposed of through a single order.
ITA No.4551/Del/2025 pertains to an order dated 19.06.2025 through which an application u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”) has been rejected. ITA No.4552/Del/2025 arises from order dated 19.06.2025, through which an application for regular registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act has been rejected. It is seen that in the order rejecting the registration u/s 12AB of the Act it is mentioned that certain queries were raised in the form of a show-cause notice to the assessee which were apparently not responded to appropriately. Consequently, the application for registration u/s 80G(5) of the Act was also rejected since the application u/s 12AB of the Act was not found fit for approval.
The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds in both the appeals challenging the action of Ld. CIT(E) on the ground that the submissions filed during the course of hearing before him were not considered and eventually one-sided orders have been passed in both the matters.
Before us the Ld. AR pointed out various portions from the two impugned orders and stated that the Ld. CIT(E) has not considered the submissions made before him and hence has passed adverse orders in both the matters. It was a prayer that these matters may be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) so that the assessee gets a chance to present the documents and evidences available with him and the Ld. CIT(E) has an opportunity to reconsider the same and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in both the cases.
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below in both the matters.
We have considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the documents before us.On perusal of the impugned orders it is revealed that the assessee’s submissions have not been duly considered. Therefore, there is a justifiable presumption that such submissions have not been considered adequately by the Ld.CIT(E). Accordingly, we set aside both the impugned orders and remand the same back to the file of Ld.CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The Ld. CIT(E) would give adequate opportunity of being heard and the assessee would be expected to avail of such opportunities.
In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.