Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal arises against an order by the CIT(Exemption) that declined the assessee's claim for section 80G registration as a charitable trust. The CIT(E) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal condoned a delay in filing the appeal and decided to restore the appeal back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, considering potential communication gaps.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication due to ex-parte proceedings and potential communication gaps.
Sections Cited
80G, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal arises against the CIT(Exemption), Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024- 25/1070261138(1) dated 11.11.2024, in proceedings u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Delay of 60 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(E)’s detailed discussion has quoted the assessee’s failure in filing all the relevant details thereby
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stand and are of the considered view that since the CIT(E) has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, possibility of some communication gaps between the taxpayer and it’s arguing counsel/auditor could not be altogether ruled out.
Faced with this situation and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the learned CIT(E) for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at it’s own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.