MAHESHWARI SABHA TRICITY,PANCHKULA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 249/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 August 2025AY 2025-26Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)5 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemptions) had passed the order ex-parte without considering the merits and without affording the assessee due opportunity. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT (Exemptions) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing a proper hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an ex-parte order by the CIT (Exemptions) rejecting its registration under Section 80G(5). The assessee argued that hearing notices were sent to an old email ID, which resulted in unintentional non-compliance and denial of an opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order rejecting Section 80G(5) registration, passed without providing proper notice to the assessee due to an incorrect email address, is valid and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri. Manoj Kumar, CA

Order Per Laliet Kumar, JM: Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 12-12-2024 of Ld. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh.

2.

Grounds of appeal are as under:

1.

1. That Ld. CIT( Exemption) is wrong in passing an ex-parte order rejecting the registration u/s 249-Chd-2025 Maheshwari Sabha Society, Panchkula

1.

2 80G(5) by stating vide para 3.1, page 5 of the rejection order that the assessee has neither furnished any reply nor sought any adjournment which shows that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the matter, ignoring the fact that the assessee had not intentionally omitted the compliances of hearing notices, however, the assessee could not make the compliance of hearing notice, because notices were sent on the old e-mail i.e of the assessee ( i.e. maheshwarisabhatricity@gmail.com), whereas the new e-mail id is sharma.narotam@gmail.com as per latest ITR filed for AY 2024-25 as well as Profile of Income tax Portal. Since, notices were not served on the registered e-mail id. (i.e.sharma.narotam@gmail.com), therefore the notices did not come to the knowledge of the assessee, leading to unintentional non- compliance.

3.

At the very outset, ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has wrongly rejected the registration u/s 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by passing an ex-parte order, without providing any opportunity of being heard. It has further been submitted that assessee had not intentionally omitted the compliance of hearing notices, however, the assessee could not make the compliance, because notices

249-Chd-2025 Maheshwari Sabha Society, Panchkula

3 were sent on the old e-mail of the assessee i.e., maheshwarisabhatricity@gmail.com, whereas, the new e- mail id of Assessee is sharma.narotam@gmail.com, as per latest ITR filed for AY 2024-25 as well as Assessee’s Profile of Income tax Portal. Since, notices were not served on the registered existing new e-mail id., therefore the notices did not come to the knowledge of the assessee, leading to unintentional non-compliance. Further, it has been submitted that the Assessee has a fair case on merit. In view of the above, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

6.

Per Contra, the ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(E).

7.

We have considered the facts brought on record by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee and we have also gone through the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(E). We find that although the Assessee did not get the notices in question on the new correct mail id, for which the order

249-Chd-2025 Maheshwari Sabha Society, Panchkula

4 was passed, still then, the Ld. CIT(E) has not passed the order on merit on the basis of material available on record. Therefore, we are of this considered view that in order to have natural justice for the Assessee and in the fitness of things the matter should be remanded back to CIT(E) for adjudication afresh. Accordingly, the case is remanded back to the CIT(E) for adjudication afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(E). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 18.08.2025.

More judgments on Section 80G(5)

All 2,236 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →