BIBI BHANIJI BHALAI KENDAR CHARITABLE,LUDHIANA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee trust applied for approval under Section 80G(5)(vi). The CIT(E) raised queries, and the assessee requested an adjournment. Without addressing the request, the CIT(E) rejected the application ex parte.
What were the issues?
Whether the rejection of the application for approval under Section 80G was done in violation of the principles of natural justice due to lack of a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT
This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 30/04/2019 of Ld. CIT(E), Chandigarh. In this appeal, the assessee, although, has raised seven grounds of appeal, however, the main grievance of the assessee relates to rejection of application for approval U/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act).
The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee e-filed an application in Form No. 10G on 18/10/2018 for approval U/s 80G of the Act before the ld. CIT(E) who asked the explanation of the assessee on the queries which are mentioned in para 2 of the impugned order, for the cost of repetition, these are not reproduced herein. The ld. CIT(E) mentioned that the assessee furnished reply which was received through Dak in his office on 19/03/2019. Thereafter, he Bibi Bhaniji Bhalai Kendar Charitable Trust Vs CIT(E)
raised another queries mentioned in para 3 of the impugned order and fixed the date for furnishing the details by 16/04/2019. However, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee by observing in para 4 of the impugned order as under:
“4. On 15.04.2019, the applicant trust replied vide email and requested for adjournment of 8-10 days. Till the passing of the order the applicant trust did not submitted the reply to the above mentioned queries. In view of the absence of any reply in response to the above queries raised by this office, the queries raised in this matter remained unexplained. All of the above, including the unresponsive attitude of the applicant, clearly leads one to conclude that the entity does not seem interested to pursue its application. It is entirely possible that it has no answer to the queries raised. In the light of the above, I have no option but to deny the approval to the applicant u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”
Now the assessee is in appeal.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(E) without giving proper time to reply his queries, passed the impugned order ex parte and rejected the application moved by the assessee U/s 80G of the Act, in violation of principles of natural justice.
In her rival submissions, the ld CIT-DR supported the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(E) and submitted that since the assessee did not reply to the queries raised by the ld. CIT(E), there was no alternate except to reject the application moved b y the assessee for approval U/s 80G of the Act.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it appears that a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided by the ld. CIT(E) particularly when the case was fixed for furnishing the details on 16/04/2019and Bibi Bhaniji Bhalai Kendar Charitable Trust Vs CIT(E)
the assessee sought time of 8-10 days vide email dated 15/04/2019. The ld. CIT(E) without commenting upon the request of the assessee, rejected the application moved by the assessee for approval U/s 80G of the Act by passing the impugned order ex parte. 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.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/04/2021) आर.एल. नेगी एन.के.सैनी, (R.L. NEGI) (N.K. SAINI) "या"यक सद"य/ Judicial Member उपा"य" / VICE PRESIDENT *Ranjan Date: 26/04/2021
आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :
अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant
""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
More judgments on Section 80G(5)(vi)
- Samvedna Foundation Trust, Agra vs ITO, Ward Exemption, AgraITA 496/AGR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Sri Vrindavana Gokula Charitable Trust… vs CIT (Exemptions), BengaluruITA 1554/BANG/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2026-27
- Creative Foundation, Nandurbar vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)…ITA 1502/PUN/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2026-27
- Ladali Goshala Seva Sanstha, Daund vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), PuneITA 641/PUN/2026[2025-2026]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2026AY 2025-2026
- The Pyramid Spiritual Trust (Hyderabad)… vs ITO (Exemption) Ward 1(3), HyderabadITA 346/HYD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
