GYANODAYA BHARAT TRUST,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s order was ex parte and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard, constituting a violation of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the application for fresh examination.
What were the facts?
The assessee-trust appealed against the order of the CIT(E) rejecting their application for approval under Section 80G. The rejection was due to the assessee failing to respond to notices, which the assessee claimed were missed due to landing in their SPAM folder.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(E)'s ex parte order violates natural justice when the assessee claims notices were not received due to spam filters, and if a fresh opportunity should be granted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee-trust against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(E)”), Chennai, dated 09.12.2024 rejecting an online application filed by the assessee on 29.06.2024 in Form No.10AB u/s.80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act”) seeking approval u/s.80G of the Act.
(AY -) Gyanodaya Bharat Trust :: 2 ::
At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(E) is an ex parte order and she pleads that the notices alleged to have been sent by the Ld.CIT(E) have been dropped in the ‘SPAM’ account of the assessee and therefore, the assessee was not aware of the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(E) which prevented the assessee from responding to the notices issued by him.
1. Therefore, according to the Ld.AR, the non-appearance/non-response to the notices was not deliberate and therefore, pleads for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(E).
Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee.
Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, it is noted that the assessee trust has been granted provisional approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act and has applied for renewal of it which has been rejected only on the ground that the assessee failed to respond to the notices [dated 28.10.2024 & 18.11.2024] issued by the Ld.CIT(E). In this regard, the AO brought to our notice that notices issued by the Ld.CIT(E) went to the ‘SPAM’ account of the assessee and therefore, the assessee wasn’t aware of such notices. Be that as it may, since the assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before the Ld.CIT(E), there is a violation of natural justice and therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of (AY -) Gyanodaya Bharat Trust the Ld.CIT(E) and restore the application back to his file for de novo examination in accordance to law. Having said so, the assessee is directed to file all the requisite documents as called for by the Ld.CIT(E) so that the Ld.CIT(E) can examine the same on its merits and take action in accordance to law. The Ld AR brought to our notice the e-mail ID for correspondence : v.ramachandranoffice@gmail.com. This id may also be considered by Ld CIT(E) while issuing notices to assessee.
In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the Ld.CIT(E) to pass orders afresh in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 26th day of May, 2025, in Chennai.
More judgments on Section 80G
- Savan Dayalal Ladani, Rajkot vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1)…ITA 575/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Pareshbhai Savjibhai Khunt, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(2)(3), RajkotITA 842/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 777/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 776/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Maa Bhawani Minrals vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026