Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an application for approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected the application due to non-furnishing of requisite details. The assessee faced a delay in filing the appeal and cited inaccessibility of its email account as a reason for non-compliance with notices.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the application for approval under Section 80G due to non-furnishing of details, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity for adjudication.
Sections Cited
80G, 147, 148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai [hereinafter “CIT(E)”] dated 09.12.2025, seeking approval u/s.80G of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”).
Chny/2025 Dr. Abdulkalam Sevak Samaj :- 2 -:
There is a delay of 115 days in filing the appeal by the assessee.
The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. We have considered the petition/affidavit of delay in filing the appeal and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the delay is hereby condoned.
The assessee had filed an application dated 24.06.2024 in Form No. 10AB under clause (iii) of the first proviso to sub-section (5), seeking approval u/s. 80G of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application on the ground that the assessee did not furnish requisite details or clarification sought.
The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R.) for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not access its e-mail account during the relevant period and, therefore, was unable to file a reply to the notices issued. It was prayed that, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be provided to substantiate its case before the Ld. CIT(E).
Chny/2025 Dr. Abdulkalam Sevak Samaj :- 3 -:
The Ld. Departmental Representative (D.R.), on the other hand, relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(E).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the assessee’s application in Form No. 10AB, filed under clause (iii) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act, on account of non-compliance with the notices issued.
The Ld. A.R. has explained that the assessee could not respond to the notices due to non-accessibility of its e-mail account. Considering the submissions and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion that the assessee deserves another opportunity to present its case before the Ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(E) on the date of hearing without fail and to furnish all requisite details for proper consideration.
Chny/2025 Dr. Abdulkalam Sevak Samaj :- 4 -:
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 28th day of August, 2025 at Chennai