CIT(E) should have provided opportunity to assessee to produce documents – ITAT

The CIT(E) should have provided opportunity to assessee to produce documents and should have decided the application on its merit – ITAT

In a recent judgment, ITAT Delhi has held that before rejecting registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii), the CIT(E) should have provided opportunity to the assessee to produce the documents and should have decided the application on its merit.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
5124 (2026) (04) abacus.in ITAT

In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order(s) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) whereby the applications filed by the Assessee for grant of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) had been rejected.

Before the Tribunal the assessee submitted that the orders impugned had been passed ex-parte, wherein the CIT(E) had not verified the documents produced by the appellant and the orders impugned had been passed without providing opportunity to the appellant to produce further documents and submissions.

On the contrary, the Revenue submitted that the appellant had failed to substantiate the claim in support of the applications filed before the CIT(E), therefore, the applications had been rightly rejected which requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal.  

The Tribunal observed that by the order impugned, the CIT(E) had rejected the application on the ground that the applicant had failed to file documentary evidences to enable me to satisfy about the genuineness and commencement of its charitable activities and to verify these activities are in consonance with its objects.

The Tribunal opined that considering the fact that the assessee was claimed to be conducting charitable activities, the CIT(E) should have provided opportunity to the appellant to produce the documents and should have decided the application on its merit. 

Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter to the file of CIT(E) with a direction to decide the applications afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. The appellant was granted liberty to produce all the requisite documents to substantiate the claim. 

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Compensation to borrower upheld as bank did not verify construction progress before loan disbursals to builder
• No timeline mentioned in PMLA to forward arrest order & material in possession to Adjudicating Authority
• Release of seized assets if mandatory on completion of 120 days? Question referred to Larger Bench
• EPFO Extends date of filing of new ECR for the wage month September to 31/10/2026
• Earlier acceptance is relevant evidence in evaluating subsequent allegation of fictitious investment