Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Gram Swawlambi Swaraj Foundation, filed appeals against the CIT(E)'s orders. The CIT(E) proceeded ex-parte against the assessee due to non-compliance with requests for details about its objects and activities.
Held
The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, acknowledging potential communication gaps. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) rightly proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, and if the matter should be restored for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
12AB(1)(b)(ii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s twin appeals & 529/Del/2025 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [in short, the “CIT(E)”], Delhi’s orders, both dated 20.12.2024 having DIN and Notice nos. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1071397545 (1) and ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1071397618(1), involving proceedings under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Learned counsel submits that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not appear to plead and prove all the relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings and therefore, larger interest of justice would be met, in case, the matter may be restored back to the CIT(E). The Revenue vehemently support the learned lower authorities action making addition(s) herein on merits.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings all along and the department’s foregoing vehement submissions. It is noticed from a perusal of the learned CIT(E)’s detailed discussion that the assessee was required to submit all the details of it’s objects and activities undertaken; as the case may be, which couldn’t be complied with. This is what led the learned CIT(E) to proceed ex-parte against the assessee. Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some