Raghunandan Mishra Charitable Trust v. CIT(E)
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
The reported Tribunal decision restores the charitable-registration matter where the notice was only uploaded on the income-tax portal and was not effectively served through e-mail or other means, resulting in an ex parte rejection.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 12A; 80G
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Charitable registration rejected ex parte after notice uploaded only on portal: The reported Tribunal decision restores the charitable-registration matter where the notice was only uploaded on the income-tax portal and was not effectively served through e-mail or other means, resulting in an ex parte rejection.
Material facts and background
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1791 & 1790/DEL/2023 Assessment Year: -M/s. Raghunandan Mishra Charitable Trust, E-57, Vs. sector-63, Noida, H.O. Gautam Buddha Nagar PAN No. AADTR6276N (APPELLANT)
ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: ITA No.1791/Del/2023 and 1790/De/2023 are two separate appeals by the assessee preferred against two separate orders of CIT(E), Lucknow dated 03.09.2022 and 03.10.2022 respectively by which the CIT(E) has denied the registration u/s. 12A and 80G of the Act.
CIT(E) rejected the impugned applications without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and in violation of principle of natural justice. 4.
IT portal were not in the knowledge of the assessee and, therefore, the proceeding could not be attended on the specified dates. 5.
there is mention of the issue of notice through IT portal but whether the notices were accessed by the assessee is not known. We are of the considered view that notices should have also been sent to the e-mail address of the assessee, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play we restore both the appeals to the files of the CIT(E) with a direction to decide the impugned applications afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Appellant / assessee submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Revenue / respondent submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
IT portal were not in the knowledge of the assessee and, therefore, the proceeding could not be attended on the specified dates. 5.
there is mention of the issue of notice through IT portal but whether the notices were accessed by the assessee is not known. We are of the considered view that notices should have also been sent to the e-mail address of the assessee, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play we restore both the appeals to the files of the CIT(E) with a direction to decide the impugned applications afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Operative decision and relief
Both these appeals were heard together and are disposed of
Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment
- No reliable precedent list was extracted automatically; use the full judgment for the citation chain.
This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.
Ratio and legal principle
The decision turns on Charitable registration rejected ex parte after notice uploaded only on portal. The operative result is classified as Disposed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Why this judgment matters
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Charitable registration rejected ex parte after notice uploaded only on portal. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
Practitioner action points
- Keep registration, audit-report, Form 10/10B/10BB and filing timestamps together; many exemption disputes are procedural and depend on when the form existed versus when it was uploaded.
- For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.
Do not over-read this case
- The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy
- Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result.
- Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
How to apply this decision in practice
This ITAT Delhi decision should be used by matching the client’s facts to the precise controversy in the case—Charitable registration rejected ex parte after notice uploaded only on portal—rather than by relying only on the result. Start with the statutory version applicable to the relevant year and compare it with 12A, 80G. Amendments, notifications, later Supreme Court/High Court decisions and a different procedural stage can materially change the answer.
For an assessment or litigation file, retain the documents that prove the factual bridge on which the judgment turns: the original notice/order, replies and objections, acknowledgements of filing/service, ledger and banking trail where relevant, contracts or property instruments where relevant, and the complete appellate chronology. If the case succeeds on jurisdiction or natural justice, do not assume the same outcome where the authority cures that defect. If it succeeds on evidence, identify exactly which documents the Court or Tribunal considered persuasive.
Before citing the case, verify the latest appellate status and whether the decision is final, distinguished, stayed, reversed or confined to its facts. The packaged PDF and source trail should be read together with the current statutory text.
Finin2min reliance rule: cite the case for the narrow legal proposition actually decided, record any contrary authority, and attach the full judgment to the working paper or litigation file. This reduces the risk of a headnote or short summary being used outside its factual and statutory context.
Verification before citation
Because this is a comparatively short order, the practical value lies in its precise procedural and factual setting rather than its length. Before citing it, compare the complete paper-book chronology, the statutory wording for the relevant year, the forum’s jurisdiction and any later appellate history. A short order can be decisive, but only for the proposition actually adjudicated. Finin2min therefore provides the full judgment PDF alongside this note so the primary reasoning can be checked rather than inferred from the summary alone.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence
Decision support built around the judgment: reliance, fact match, Q&A, section impact, related-case network and practical next steps.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | ITAT |
|---|---|
| Reliance effect | Tribunal precedent. Persuasive for similar facts; subject to the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court. Coordinate-Bench discipline should be checked. |
| Source integrity | A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending. |
| Subsequent history | Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. |
| Finin2min status | Later-history check open |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- Your dispute raises the same core issue: Charitable registration rejected ex parte after notice uploaded only on portal.
- The same statutory provisions or materially equivalent provisions apply: 12A, 80G.
- Your matter is at a comparable the same procedural and factual stage stage.
- Your documentary/evidentiary record is materially similar to the facts the ITAT Delhi considered: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court ruling changes the legal position.
- The statutory provision was amended for your year or transaction.
- Your evidence, transaction structure, notice chronology or procedural stage differs on a fact the judgment treated as material.
- The case succeeded on a narrow jurisdictional/procedural defect that the authority has cured in your matter.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Raghunandan Mishra Charitable Trust?
The reported Tribunal decision restores the charitable-registration matter where the notice was only uploaded on the income-tax portal and was not effectively served through e-mail or other means, resulting in an ex parte rejection.
Which facts mattered most to the result?
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K.
What did the ITAT Delhi ultimately decide?
Both these appeals were heard together and are disposed of
What legal principle can be taken from this judgment?
The decision turns on Charitable registration rejected ex parte after notice uploaded only on portal. The operative result is classified as Disposed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Which provisions should be checked before relying on the case?
The case engages 12A, 80G. The relevant statutory version for Not stated in captured judgment metadata should be checked together with any later amendment, notification, circular and controlling higher-court authority.
When is this judgment most useful to a taxpayer or adviser?
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Charitable registration rejected ex parte after notice uploaded only on portal . Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
What could make this judgment distinguishable or unsafe to rely on?
The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result. Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Can this judgment be cited as current law without another check?
Tribunal precedent. Persuasive for similar facts; subject to the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court. Coordinate-Bench discipline should be checked. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending.
Section / provision impact
- 12A — 12A is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of charitable registration rejected ex parte after notice uploaded only on portal. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- 80G — 80G is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of charitable registration rejected ex parte after notice uploaded only on portal. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
How the decision changes your analysis
Before using this authority, frame the issue under 12A, 80G and identify the decisive facts/evidence. The result should not be assumed from the case title alone.
The decision turns on Charitable registration rejected ex parte after notice uploaded only on portal. The operative result is classified as Disposed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Tribunal precedent. Persuasive for similar facts; subject to the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court. Coordinate-Bench discipline should be checked. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.
Case network: similar and different outcomes
Closest related cases in the Finin2min repository
Related cases with a different result
Related-case links are repository similarity connections, not a claim that one judgment cites or overrules another. Use the cited-authority list and later-history check for formal precedent analysis.
Working-paper citation
Full judgment and source trail
Read / download the clean local judgment copy
| Packaged source class | SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING |
|---|---|
| Pages | 3 |
| SHA-256 | aaa7fe0f3c43261f450aa7ba9dff3c9ff550f61a4c396b97ccc8423f0fac6dbf |
| Original source URL | Not exposed publicly. Original provenance retained only in the private source-closure ledger. |
| Source authentication | Sanitized local full-text copy - official primary replacement pending |