Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed applications for exemption under Section 12A. The CIT(E) rejected these applications, citing non-provision of requested details. The assessee contended that the rejection was summarily done without providing adequate opportunity of being heard.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. The CIT(E) passed unilateral conclusions. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and directed the CIT(E) to re-adjudicate the matter after providing due opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was denied adequate opportunity of being heard by the CIT(E) before rejection of the exemption application. Whether the rejection was based on unilateral conclusions without proper counter-defense.
Sections Cited
12A, 80G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
The below mentioned two appeals have been filed by the appellant assessee for AY-2022-23 contesting the order of Ld. CIT(E ) indicated Column-E, herein below:-
S. Appeal AYs Appellant CIT(A) Order Details Respondent No. Nos. A B C D E F DIN & Order No. ITBA / EXM / F / EXM45 / 2024-25 M/s.Chidagni Commissioner Foundation / 1070702355(1) dated 1 2022-23 / Chny / of Income Apartment No.07081, 28.11.2024 2025 Taxes DLF Garden City, (Exemption), Thazambur, DIN & Order No. ITBA / Chennai- 600 130. Chennai. EXM / F / EXM45 / 2024-25 [PAN: AADTC1503F] 2 2022-23 / Chny / / 1070702417(1) dated 2025 28.11.2024 2.0 Both the above appeals of the assessee are centering around the common ground of denial of exemption u/s. 12A and section 80G and hence for the purposes of convenience were heard together and are being adjudicated by this common order. For the purposes of convenience we will consider the appeal of the assessee in ITA 123/Chny/2025 qua denial of exemption u/s 12A. As the facts are identical the decision therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to as well. 3.0 At the outset, the Ld.Councel for the assessee explained that its application u/s. 12A was made before the Ld.CIT(E ), Chennai on 13.05.2024 through Form-10AB. The Ld.Counsel has submitted that the Ld.CIT(E ) has summarily rejected its petition holding that requested details have not been provided by it. It has been contended that the same is not wholly correct and therefore its natural right of being granted adequate opportunity of being heard stands violated. It was accordingly requested that the matter may be considered for remission back to the Ld.CIT(E ) with the directions for readjudication de novo after giving adequate opportunity of being heard. 4.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that there is sufficient force in the argument of the assessee of not being accorded adequate opportunity of Page - 2 - of 4 being heard before drawing adverse conclusions in its case. We have noted from para 4.1 to para 5 of the order of the Ld.CIT(E ) supra that he has alluded to several deficiencies in the submissions and details filed by the assessee. There is nothing on record however to indicate that the assessee was given an opportunity to offer any counter defence. We have noted that the Ld.CIT(E ) has drawn unilateral conclusions before rejecting the application u/s 12A. Due opportunity of being heard is natural right of every litigant and cannot be denied or deprived during any judicial proceedings. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(E ) and direct him to readjudicate the matter de novo, in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It shall be bounden upon the assessee to comply all the statutory notices issued by the department. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA 123/Chny/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes. 6.0 We have noted that the facts of the case in for AY- 2022-23 are identical qua violation of assessee’s right of being heard and therefore the decision taken in ITA No.123 shall apply mutatis mutandis in ITA No.124 for AY-2022-23.
Page - 3 - of 4
ITA No. 123 & 124 /Chny/2025 7.0 In the result, the appeal in and for AY- 2022-23 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 6th , Aug-2025 at Chennai.