PACIFIC ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH UNIVERSITY,UDAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal held that the order was passed without hearing the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s order was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee applied for approval under Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected the application ex parte after the assessee failed to comply with two notices, citing a violation of natural justice.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(E) properly granted an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before rejecting the application for approval under Section 80G.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Before: SHRI N.K.SAINI & SHRI A. T. VARKEY
PER A. T. Varkey, J.M.
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur dated 29.01.2019 wherein the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application filed by the assessee on 20.07.2018 in Form No. 10G seeking approval u/s. 80G(5)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
At the outset itself, it was brought to our notice that the impugned order is an ex parte order. We note that the Ld. CIT(E) issued a letter/notice dated 21.08.2018 directing the assessee to submit certain documents/explanations by 12.09.2018 and also to produce the original certificate u/s. 12AA/10(23C) on that date. Since no compliance was made by the assessee/applicant, the Ld. CIT(E) gave
2 Pacific Academy of Higher Education & Research University, AY 2018-19
one more opportunity by letter dated 19.12.2018 as final opportunity but according to Ld. CIT(E) neither anybody appeared nor any reply was filed by the assessee applicant. So, taking into consideration that there is a limitation of time for passing the order, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee/applicant. Therefore, the main grievance of the assessee/applicant is that no proper opportunity was granted to the assessee/applicant to represent its case before the Ld. CIT(E) and, therefore, there is a violation of natural justice.
Per contra, the Ld. CIT, DR contended that the assessee/applicant never bothered to file documents/present the case before the Ld. CIT(E) and, therefore, it was rightly rejected by the Ld. CIT(E).
After hearing the Ld. CIT, DR, we note that the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application for approval u/s. 80G of the Act on the ground that assessee did not comply with the notices issued by him. Since the order has been passed without hearing the assessee/applicant, there is a violation of Natural Justice so, we are inclined to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and direct him to pass an order de- novo after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say that the assessee has to be either present itself or through its representative with the documents sought by the Ld. CIT(E) during hearing, so that he can adjudicate the application on merits. With the aforesaid observation, the impugned order of Ld. CIT(E) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(E) to adjudicate afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 7th May, 2019 (N.K. SAINI) Judicial Member Dated : 07.05.2019 “J.D. Sr. PS.”
3 Pacific Academy of Higher Education & Research University, AY 2018-19
आदेशक"""त"ल"पअ"े"षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant
""यथ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयु त/ CIT 4. आयकरआयु त (अपील)/ The CIT(A)
"वभागीय""त"न%ध, आयकरअपील'यआ%धकरण, च*डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, Jodhpur 6. गाड-फाईल/ Guard File
आदेशानुसार/ By order सहायकपंजीकार/
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 →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026