IASPIRE MIND FOUNDATION,GURGAON V. EXEMPTIONS WARD FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

ITA 7467/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Iaspire Mind Foundation appealing against the decisions of the CIT (Exemptions), which had rejected their applications for registration under sections 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the rejections were primarily based on procedural non-compliance and the absence of registration under section 12AB. The Foundation argued that their charitable activities were not adequately considered and that they were denied a fair opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal agreed that the principles of natural justice were not adhered to in the initial decision-making process and thus remanded the case for a fresh evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 844486 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: M/s Shri Shivbachan Sewa Sansthan Versus The CIT (Exemptions), Lucknow
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: HIMANSHU NEGI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Principle of natural justice; Charitable institution; Tangible material; Procedural lapse
• Section: 12AA; 12A; 80G

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member ITA No. 7466/Del/2025 :Asstt. Year: 2023-24 ITA No. 7467/Del/2025 :Asstt. Year: 2023-24 Iaspire Mind Foundation, C-118, Second Floor, Suncity, Sector-54, Gurgaon-122002 Vs CIT, Exemptions Ward, Faridabad-121001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAGCI4761D Assessee by: Sh. Himanshu Negi, Adv. Revenue by: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 11.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 18.03.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeals are directed against order of the Ld. CIT(E), Chandigarh, dated 14.03.2023, wherein the application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act, filed by the applicant on 29.09.2022 in ITA No. 7466 & 7467/Del/2025, respectively alongwith request to the approval u/s 80G of the Act has been rejected in the absence of registration u/s 12AB of the Act. 2. By this common order, we propose to decide the ITA Nos. 7466 & 7467/Del/2025 as the appellant is the same and facts are similar and accordingly in order to avoid the repetition, both the appeals are taken up together for disposal. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 7466 & 7467/Del/2025 Iaspire Mind Foundation 2 3. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal and has raised following grounds as under: ITA No. 7466/Del/2025: “1. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Chandigarh, has erred both in law and on facts in rejecting the application for approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, merely on the ground that registration under Section 12AB was not granted, without examining the merits of the Appellant’s charitable nature and activities. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption) failed to appreciate that the Appellant is a genuine charitable institution engaged in education and social welfare activities, duly constituted under law, and that non-grant of Section 12AB registration due to procedural non-compliance cannot automatically disentitle approval under Section 80G(5). 3. That the order of rejection is mechanical, non-speaking, and violative of principles of natural justice, as no opportunity was provided to the Appellant to explain its position or submit documents demonstrating eligibility under Section 80G(5). 4. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption) has failed to appreciate that the legislative intent behind Section 80G is to encourage donations to genuine charitable organizations, and not to deny such benefit on technical procedural lapses. 5. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption) ought to have either kept the 80G application pending till disposal of the 12A registration appeal or remanded it for reconsideration instead of rejecting it summarily. 6. That the order of the Ld. CIT (Exemption) is unjust, arbitrary, and against the spirit of the beneficial provisions of Sections 12A and 80G of the Act. 7. That the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow in ITA Nos. 124 & 125/Lkw/2025 titled as M/s Shri Shivbachan Sewa Sansthan Versus The CIT (Exemptions), Lucknow was pleased to grant of registration under Section 80G of the Act, since Id. CIT(Exemptions), Lucknow rejected the application filed by the assessee for grant of registration on the basis of the same aforesaid contradictions in the application and replies filed by the assessee-trust. Accordingly, in the interests of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the Id. CIT(Exemptions) to hear the matter afresh on merits with respect to application for grant of registration under Section 80G of the Act. Copy of Judgement of Hon'ble ITAT dated 26.08.2025 is marked and annexed herein as Annexure 7. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 7466 & 7467/Del/2025 Iaspire Mind Foundation 3 8. That the present Appeal is made bona fide and in the interest of justice.” ITA No. 7467/Del/2025: “1. That the teamed Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) erred in rejecting the application for registration of the Company under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that the applicant failed to provide certain documents and evidence, despite having responded promptly to the notice dated 10.11.2022 and submitted a detailed reply on 21.12.2022. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) erred in asserting the applicant company failed to submit documentary evidences with note on activities for e.g. photos, vouchers, bills of the expenses etc. of charitable or religious activities carried out in the last one year, towards fulfillment of aims & objects mentioned in the MoA, furnish an affidavit/undertaking to the effect that the institution is complying with all the requirements of law as are material for the purpose of its objects as enumerated in the MoA, furnish an undertaking that there will be no infringement to the 1st provision to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, final accounts for FY 2021-22 and furnish a comprehensive note on activities being conducted by the Company, which was contrary to the facts. The applicant had made every attempt to comply with the queries raised in the notice, including submitting relevant documents, albeit not including all the requested information due to unforeseen circumstances and internal procedural delays. 3. That The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has erred in law, in over-looking and in summarily rejecting and not considered, the tangible material submitted during the proceeding u/s 12AB of Income Tax Act. 1961. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) failed to consider the provisions under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, which provide for an opportunity to the applicant Company to submit the required documentation, and that no adverse inference could have been drawn from the minor omissions in the documents submitted. It is submitted that these omissions should not be a sole reason for rejection of the application. 5. That the applicant, in response to the notice dated 19.01.2023, did not receive the opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay or any specific circumstances leading to the incomplete submission, which denied the applicant a fair chance to present a comprehensive case. The failure to respond within the time frame should not lead to rejection of the application, considering that the applicant Company had been diligent in its earlier communications. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 7466 & 7467/Del/2025 Iaspire Mind Foundation 4 6. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), in rejecting the application for registration, failed to apply the principles of natural justice by not allowing the applicant Company a reasonable opportunity to rectify the defects or submit the necessary documentary evidence. It is also relevant to note that the applicant Company was granted provisional registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) in the past, and its activities during the provisional period had been in compliance with the conditions set out under die Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That the rejection order, in the absence of clear and sufficient evidence proving that the activities of the applicant Company are not genuine or in line with its objectives, is unjustified. The applicant Company has consistently adhered to the spirit of its charitable objectives and continues to maintain transparency in its operations. 8. That the rejection of the application for registration under section 12AB fails to take into account the applicant’s ongoing charitable activities and the steps it has undertaken to ensure the transparency and integrity of its financial reporting and activities, in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 9. That the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow in ITA Nos. 124 &125/Lkw/2025 titled as M/s Shri Shivbachan Sewa Sansthan Versus The CIT (Exemptions), Lucknow was pleased to grant of registration under Section 12AB of the Act, since Id. CIT(Exemptions), Lucknow rejected the application filed by the assessee for grant of registration on the basis of the same aforesaid contradictions in the application and replies filed by the assessee-trust. Accordingly, in the interests of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the Id. CIT(Exemptions) to hear the matter afresh on merits with respect to application for grant of registration under Section I2AB of the Act. Copy of Judgement of Hon’ble ITAT dated 26.08.2025 is marked and annexed herein as Annexure 7.” 4. Since, both the appeals are barred by 903 days and there is an affidavit filed for seeking condonation of delay, we first consider the condonation of delay alongwith detailed affidavit narrating the reasons for not filing the appeal before the due date and the contents of the affidavit are extracted below: Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 7466 & 7467 Iaspire Mind 5 7466 & 7467/Del/2025 Iaspire Mind Foundation Printed from counselvise.com 5. No contrary material to contradict the contents of the affidavit or that the contents of affidavit are not true has been filed by the Revenue before us. The explanation given by assessee/appellant through affidavit in our satisfactory and justified. Moreover, our view is fortified by the pronouncement of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katij Ors. [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) Apex Court was pleased to hold regarding the condonation of delay as under: “The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of ITA Nos. 7466 & 7467 Iaspire Mind 6 No contrary material to contradict the contents of the affidavit or that the contents of affidavit are not true has been filed by the Revenue before us. The explanation given by assessee/appellant through affidavit in our opinion satisfactory and justified. Moreover, our view is fortified by the Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katij Ors. [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) dated 19.02.1987, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold regarding the condonation of “The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 7466 & 7467/Del/2025 Iaspire Mind Foundation No contrary material to contradict the contents of the affidavit or that the contents of affidavit are not true has been filed by the Revenue before us. The explanation given by opinion is satisfactory and justified. Moreover, our view is fortified by the Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & dated 19.02.1987, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold regarding the condonation of “The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 7466 & 7467/Del/2025 Iaspire Mind Foundation 7 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits”. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making of justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.” 6. In view of these facts and circumstances, we find it expedient in the interest of justice that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before us. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned and proceed to decide the same on merit. 7. We have heard the ld. AR for the assessee and Ld. DR for the Revenue and examined the impugned order in both the appeals. The only contention raised before us is that the Principle of Natural Justice has not been followed while passing the impugned order as no effective opportunity of hearing has been given when rejecting the application u/s 12AB of the Act as well as u/s 80G of the Act. It is therefore prayed that matter Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 7466 & 7467/Del/2025 Iaspire Mind Foundation 8 may be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for considering it afresh by giving opportunity of hearing and to permit to file necessary documents. The Ld. DR on the other hand stated that despite of numerous opportunity given by ld. CIT(E) as find mentioned in para 3 of the impugned order therefore, the assessee is not entitled to any mercy due to thereon conduct and appeal is required to be dismissed. 8. We have considered the rival submission and examined the record, Section 250(2)(a) lays down as under: “250(2) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal- (a) the appellant, either in person or by an authorized representative;” 9. Thus, the hearing mandated by Section 250(2)(a) of the Act is not a mere formality but a mandatory statutory requirement for following the principle of natural justice by the quasi-judicial authority. We extract the para 5 of the impugned order in ITA no. 7467/Del/2025 which would make clear that the effective opportunity of hearing has not been given which is required u/s 250(2)(a) of the Act. “5. In view of the above discussions, the present application of the assessee filed in Form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act is disposed of as being deficient in factual evidences in the absence of the requisite submissions of the assessee in response to the letter issued by this office. This is despite the granting of at least three opportunities as above. It is pertinent to mention here that it is mandated by the provisions of Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act that where the trust or Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 7466 & 7467/Del/2025 Iaspire Mind Foundation 9 institution has been provisionally registered u/s 12AB it has to make an application for registration u/s 12AB within six months of commencement of activities. In the absence of any submission from the applicant it is not possible to ascertain the objects and activities carried out by the applicant. Accordingly the application filed by the applicant for registration u/s 12AB of the Act is hereby rejected, which rejection and consequent lack of registration will apply from this F.Y. 2022-23 onwards and also supersedes any registration granted u/s 12AB or 12AA of the Act by any authority at any earlier time.” 10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed without effective hearing and principle of natural justice has not been followed and as a consequence the approval u/s 80G of the Act has also been denied which is subject matter of ITA No. 7466/Del/2025. For these reasons, the impugned order in both the appeals are not maintainable and accordingly set aside. The end of justice shall be met in case the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for deciding the issue of requisite approval sought by the appellant afresh by affording an effective opportunity of hearing and considering the submissions to be made by the appellant/assessee. The assessee/appellant is also directed to make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the Ld. CIT(E) within the period of 60 days of this order. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 7466 & 7467/Del/2025 Iaspire Mind Foundation 10 11. Both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 18/03/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Renu Jauhri) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 18/03/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Printed from counselvise.com "