Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against orders of the CIT(E) rejecting their applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. The CIT(E) passed ex-parte orders as the assessee did not respond to notices.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's explanation for the delay in responding to notices and, in the interest of justice, decided to provide one more opportunity. The issues were restored to the CIT(E)'s file.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) was justified in passing ex-parte orders without considering the assessee's reasons for not responding to notices, and if an opportunity should be granted for the assessee to represent their case.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai both dated 22.08.2025, rejecting Form No.10AB filed for seeking registration u/s.12AB and approval u/s.80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’).
& 2972/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(E) has passed ex-parte orders. The reason for deciding the appeals ex-parte was that the assessee did not reply to the notices issued from the office of the CIT(E). The Ld.AR submitted that it took time for the assessee to include certain additional clauses in the society bye laws, which required resolution at the EC meeting and also registration with Registrar Office. The assessee has sought adjournment explaining the circumstances but the CIT(E) without considering it, passed the ex-parte orders. Therefore, it was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be provided to represent its cases before the CIT(E).
The ld.DR supported the orders of CIT(E).
We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Office of the CIT(E) had issued notices directing the assessee to file certain details/documents. Since there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued, the CIT(E) passed ex-parte orders. It is the claim of the Ld.AR that the assessee had sought adjournment explaining the circumstances which requires time to include certain additional clauses in the society bye-laws, which the CIT(E) without considering passed & 2972/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: the ex-parte orders. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the office of the CIT(E). However, in the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent its cases and accordingly the issues are restored to the files of the CIT(E). The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17th December, 2025 at Chennai.