RAKESH LAW FOUNFATION,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

Rakesh Law Foundation The Commissioner of Income No.51/11, 7th Avenue, Tax(Exemptions), Soundariya Colony Anna Nagar Chennai. West Extn. Chennai-600 101. [PAN: AAETR6528A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.Shrenik Chordia, C.A, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Mrs.C.Yamuna, CIT. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / EXM / F / EXM45 / 2023-24 / 1053746062(1) dated 15.06.2023 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [herein after “CIT(E), Chennai. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 631 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assessee had given its email id dsdinesh2619@gmail.com for communication however the departmental communications were sent on some other email address. As a result of the same, the assessee could not keep a track of the ex-parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(E ). Subsequently, the department had forwarded its order to assessee’s Chartered Accountants and then only the assessee trust learnt of the order in its case. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assesse submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay. It was however contended that the assessee is a willful defaulter and hence cost be imposed before admitting the present appeal. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 At the outset, the Ld.Councel for the assessee explained that its online application u/s. 80G was made before the Ld.CIT(E ), Chennai on 21.12.2022. 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 Page - 2 - of 5 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 being heard before drawing adverse conclusions in its case. We have noted from para 6 to para 7 of the order of the Ld.CIT(E ) supra that he has alluded to deficient compliance from the assessee. The Ld. DR submitted that as per present scheme of things, the application deserves to be rejected after three opportunities. Due opportunity of being heard is natural right of every litigant and cannot be denied or deprived during any judicial proceedings. It is an undisputed fact on record that the appellant has not got the opportunity of defending its case. On its part, the appellant has attributed the same to departmental communications sent on the wrong email address. 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. The Revenue may consider sending its communications to the email id shrenik@cngsn.com being the id given by Page - 3 - of 5 the appellant in Form-36 before us. It shall be bounden upon the assessee to comply all the statutory notices issued by the department. Any non-compliance from the assessee shall be sufficient cause with the Revenue to dismiss appellant’s application in limine. We however find force in the argument of the Ld. DR that assessee’s repeated non- compliance has indeed caused loss of precious time of the statutory authorities. Consequently, the decision to remit the matter to the Ld. AO is however subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days of the receipt of this order. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse on this issue are allowed for statistical purposes. 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 6th , Aug-2025 at Chennai.