PUSA BANGIYA SANGEET SABHA,DELHI V. CIT (EXEMPTION), DELHI

ITA 2497/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Pusa Bangiya Sangeet Sabha, the Appellant, contesting an order from the CIT(Exemption) which rejected their application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The rejection was based on the Appellant's failure to comply with notices and produce requisite documents. The Appellant argued that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as they were not given an opportunity to be heard. The CIT(Exemption) contended that the Appellant's non-compliance justified the rejection. The Tribunal found that the Appellant was not heard before the order was passed and thus set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order, remanding the case for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773735 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POOJA SWAROOP
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAVESH KUMAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 2497/Del/2025 PusaBangiya Vs. CIT(E) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI BENCH ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2497/DEL/2025 (A.Y. 2023-24) Pusa Bangiya Sangeet Sabha EG, 48, Inderpuri, Delhi PAN: AAGAP0766M Vs. CIT(Exemption) Civic Centre, Minto Road, Delhi -110002 Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Pravesh Kumar, Adv Revenue by Ms.Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) –Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(E)’ for short), dated 14/09/2022. 2. There is a delay of 869 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an affidavit contending that the However, no notice has been served on the Assessee by the Ld. CIT(E) and even the impugned order has not been served on the Assessee, which is evident from the e- portal. The Assessee came to know only when the assessment order for the year 2022-23 served on the Assessee. Thus, sought for condoning the delay. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 2497/Del/2025 PusaBangiya Vs. CIT(E) 3. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the present Appeal on delay in latches. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record on the issue of delay in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee contended that the no notice has been served on the Assessee by the Ld. CIT(E) and even the impugned order has not been served on the Assessee, which is evident from the e-portal. The Assessee came to know only when the assessment order for the year 2022-23 served on the Assessee. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 869 days in filing the present Appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 2497/Del/2025 PusaBangiya Vs. CIT(E) 6. The appellant filed an Application for seeking registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short). The said application has been rejected vide order dated 14/09/2022 on the ground that the Appellant failed to comply with the notices and failed to produce requisite documents in support of the claim, which is under challenged before us. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the order impugned has been passed in violation of principals of natural justice, the Ld. CIT(E) has not provided the opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, thus sought for allowing the Appeal. 8. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Appellant has not complied with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) and not produced any documents in support of the claim, thus the order impugned has been rightly passed by the Ld. CIT(E), therefore, sought for dismissal of the present Appeal. 9. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the order impugned, the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application for want of documents to substantiate the claim of the Appellant and the Appellant has not been heard before passing the order impugned. Thus, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 2497/Del/2025 PusaBangiya Vs. CIT(E) CIT(E) and remand the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to decide the applications afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. The Appellant is also at liberty to produce any/all documents in support of its claim. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th September, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 26 .09.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 2497/Del/2025 PusaBangiya Vs. CIT(E) Printed from counselvise.com "