HARYANA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

From the aforesaid grounds, it is gathered that only grievance of the assessee relates to the ex parte order passed by the ld. CIT(E) without affording opportunity of being heard.

The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee e-filed Form No. 10A for registration U/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act). However, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application filed by the assessee by observing in paras 2 to 4 of the impugned order as under:

Now the assessee is in appeal.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no notice for hearing was served upon the assessee who was not aware of the date fixed for hearing on 22/08/2019. It was stated by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the ld. CIT(E) passed the impugned order ex parte without commenting on the objects of the assessee which were charitable in nature, therefore, the rejection of application for grant of registration U/s 12AA of the Act was not justified.

In her rival submissions, the ld CIT-DR strongly supported the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(E) and further submitted that the assessee was non- cooperative and did not appear whenever the case was fixed for hearing, so it was difficult to verify the objects as well as genuineness of the activities of the assessee society. Therefore, the ld. CIT(E) rightly rejected the application moved by the assessee.

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(E) passed the impugned order ex parte. He simply stated that opportunity was afforded to the assessee on 14/08/2019 and the matter was fixed for hearing on 22/08/2019. However, it is not brought on record as to whether the notice for hearing was served upon the assessee or the aforesaid date was initimated to the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alterm partem”. We therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

""यथ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु"त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु"त (अपील)/ The CIT(A)

"वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य आ"धकरण, च"डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड" फाईल/ Guard File