Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an application for registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT (Exemptions) rejected the application without properly appreciating the facts and evidence, and without issuing a show cause notice or affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee has a right to be heard before an order is passed by the CIT(E). Since this was not done in the present case, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(E) to grant an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and then pass a fresh order.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the registration application without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Sections Cited
80G, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM: Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 26.05.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Chandigarh.
Grounds of appeal are as under:
1. 1. That the Ld. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh has grossly erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application filed by the 883-Chd-2025 Koolking Foundation, Malerkotla 2 appellant for registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without properly appreciating the facts and evidences on record.
2. That the Ld. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh has grossly erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application filed by the appellant for registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without issuance of any show cause notice and without affording adequate and meaningful opportunity of being heard.
3. That the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) has erred in concluding that the activities of the trust are not genuine and not in accordance with the objects ignoring the fact that the trust is newly formed and had duly filed the required documents evidencing its charitable intent, including proof of land acquisition for future charitable use.
4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing
3. At the very outset, ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application filed by the appellant for registration u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') without issuance of any 883-Chd-2025 Koolking Foundation, Malerkotla 3 show cause notice and without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Assessee.
The ld. counsel also brought it to the notice of the Bench that as per provisions of the Income Tax Act, the Ld. CIT(E) is required to grant opportunity to the Assessee of being heard but that has not been done in this case.
Per contra, ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(E).
We have considered the findings given by the ld. CIT(E) in the order passed by her and we have also considered the submissions made by the AR of the Assessee during proceedings before us. We are of this considered view that as per the I.T. Act, the Assessee has every right to be heard before passing an order by the CIT(E), which in the present case, has not been done. Accordingly, we remand this case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to grant an opportunity of being heard to the Assessee as required under the law and then pass an 883-Chd-2025 Koolking Foundation, Malerkotla 4 order. Accordingly, Assessee, appeal is allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 29.10.2025.