HARE RAMA HARE KRISHNA FIGHTER CLUB,AMBALA V. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 460/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Hare Rama Hare Krishna Fighter Club, which appealed against the decision of the CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh, rejecting their application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT Exemptions had rejected the application on the grounds that the Assessee did not have provisional registration. The Tribunal found that the CIT Exemptions had not considered the application on its merits and had not provided a proper opportunity for the Assessee to be heard, which are essential elements of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 835320 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANAV BANSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DHRUV GOYAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 460/CHD/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Hare Rama Hare Krishna Fighter Club, Anaj Mandi, Ambala Cantt 134003 बनाम Vs. The CIT, Exemptions, Chandigarh èथायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AAAAH3048J अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent ( PHYSICAL HEARING ) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Dhruv Goyal, CA राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT, DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 21.01.2026 उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM : Appeal in this case has been filed by the appellant - Assessee against the order dated 8.8.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions [‘(CIT(E)’] Printed from counselvise.com 460-Chd-2025 2 2. Grounds of appeal, as raised by the Assessee are reproduced as under: 1. That, the learned CIT(E), Chandigarh has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac) (III) filed by assessee. 2. That the learned CIT(E), Chandigarh has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application for registration u/s 124(1)(ac) (ill) filed by the assessee without providing opportunity of being heard. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or to substitute the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of case. 3. The Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 147 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Counsel of the Assessee has filed an application along with Affidavit on behalf of the Assessee, making prayer for condonation of delay. The affidavit of the Assessee is as under: - Printed from counselvise.com 460-Chd-2025 3 Printed from counselvise.com 460-Chd-2025 4 Printed from counselvise.com 460-Chd-2025 5 4. We have considered the reasons given in the Application / Affidavit and keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned therein, we are inclined to condone the delay. 5. The ld. DR did not have any objection for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 6. At the very outset, it has been submitted before the Bench by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions, Chandigarh has rejected the application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') filed by the Assessee electronically on 28.5.2024 in form 10AB finding that the Assessee did not have provisional registration. 7. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 8. We have considered the findings given by the Ld. CIT Exemptions and the arguments made by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee as well as the ld. DR. Printed from counselvise.com 460-Chd-2025 6 9. We find that in the present case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions, Chandigarh has rejected the application of the applicant for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) in a very casual manner simply stating that the application does not have provision registration and in the absence of that, he cancelled the applicant’s application being non-maintainable without considering the material available on record and deciding the issue on merit. 10. We find that the Ld. CIT Exemptions has not passed the order on merits on the basis of material available on record. Therefore, keeping in view the element of natural justice, we are inclined to remand it back to the file of the CIT(E) to re-adjudicate the case on merit on the basis of material available on record. In view of this, the impugned order of the CIT(E) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(E) for decision afresh. Needless to say, that the ld. CIT(E) will give proper opportunity to the Assessee to present its case and to furnish necessary evidences and details. The applicant is also directed to present its case before the Ld. CIT(E) as and when called for and will not contribute in unnecessary delay in the hearing of the appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 460-Chd-2025 7 11. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced on 11.2.2026. Sd/- Sd/- ( LALIET KUMAR ) ( KRINWANT SAHAY) Judicial Member Accountant Member “आर.क े.” आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "