SULOCHANA FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(E) rejected both the applications primarily on the ground that there was non-compliance with the terms of the notice issued during the course of proceedings. It was contended that the impugned orders have been passed ex parte, without granting an effective and reasonable opportunity of hearing. It was, therefore, prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative fairly left the issue to the discretion of the Bench.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. From the impugned orders, it is evident that the learned CIT(E) has rejected the applications mainly on the ground that the assessee had not complied with all the terms of the notice issued and, therefore, the requisite satisfaction regarding the objects of the trust and the genuineness of its activities could not be recorded. Since the impugned orders have been passed ex parte, we are of the

Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we set aside the impugned orders and restore both the matters to the file of the learned CIT(E) with a direction to adjudicate the applications afresh in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the proceedings and to furnish all the information and documents as may be called for by the learned CIT(E), without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.