ADI SANKARA ADVAITA RESEARCH CENTRE,CHENNAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

& 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.