SAHIL EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHIWANI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee filed an application in prescribed Form for grant of registration under section 12AA of the I.T. Act, 1961 and approval under section 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(E) fixed the matter for hearing on 24.04.2017, however, none appeared on behalf of the Assessee. The Ld. CIT(E) gave another opportunity on 09.05.2017 fixing the case on 19.05.2017 requesting the assessee to file the documents/clarification as mentioned in para-2 of the impugned order. The Ld. CIT(E) noted that the letters issued by his Office on 07.04.2017 and 09.05.2017 were returned un-delivered on 19.04.2017 and 18.05.2017 respectively with the remarks “insufficient address”. The Ld. CIT(E) in the absence of assessee and in the absence of any material on record, dismissed the applications for registration under section 12AA of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(E) also dismissed the applications under section 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961 because no registration have been granted under section 12AA of the I.T. Act, 1961.

The assessee has been notified the date of hearing through registered post, however, none appeared on behalf of the assessee.

We have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the findings of the authorities below. The assessee in the grounds of appeal has claimed that assessee has not been given an opportunity of being heard by the Ld. CIT(E). It is also claimed in the grounds of appeal that impugned order have been received at the address given which is stated to be insufficient address in the impugned order. These facts clearly show that assessee has not been served with the notice for hearing of the cases before the Ld. CIT(E). We find that address of the assessee given in the impugned orders is same as have been given in the appeal papers. Therefore, there is no question of no service of notice upon assessee. It is an admitted fact that two notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) have returned un-served with the remarks insufficient address. May be there is some mistake on the part of the postal authorities in giving such remarks while returning back the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(E). Considering the above, it is clear that assessee has not been served of the notice issued for hearing of the above matters, therefore, no reasonable, sufficient opportunity have been given to the assessee while considering the issue under sections 12AA and 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961. It is a case of denial of principles of natural justice to the assessee. The impugned orders, thus, cannot be sustained in Law. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned orders and restore the matters in issue to the file of Ld. CIT(E), Chandigarh with a direction to re-decide both the matters as per Law, by giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

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