JYOTI FOUNDATION,AMBALA CANTT. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

( Physical Hearing ) �नधा�रती क� ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ajay Jain, CA (Virtual) राज�व क� ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 04.06.2025 उदघोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 16.06.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

The captioned appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the separate orders dated 27.09.2024 and 30.09.2024 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions, Chandigarh [herein referred to as ‘CIT(E)’] .

1124 & 1125-Chd-2024 – Jyoti Foundations, Ambala 2 2. The only ground of appeal raised by the Assessee in is as under:

The Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions has wrongly rejected registration under section 12AA without giving reasonable opportunity of being hard in person. Whereas, the ground raised by the Assessee in is as under:

The Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions has wrongly rejected the exemption under section 80G.

Brief facts of the case, as per the written submissions of the Ld.AR of the Assessee (in both the cases) is that the Assessee is a charitable trust for the welfare of public in large and had applied for registration u/s 12A and 80G of the Income tax Act respectively. During the proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the due date for submission of tax audit was 30th September and since he was awfully busy and held up in finalizing audits of the clients, thus, under such circumstances, he could not prepare the reply for the proceedings u/s 12A and 80G of the Act before the CIT(E) and in the absence of reply,

1124 & 1125-Chd-2024 – Jyoti Foundations, Ambala 3 his applications were rejected u/s 12AB and 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower authorities but could not controvert the fact that the order was passed by the ld. CIT(E) without hearing or considering the arguments of the Assessee.

6. We have heard the arguments of the Counsel of the Assessee and we have also gone through the written submission filed by him. We have also gone through the order of the CIT(E) and the arguments of the ld. DR before us. We find that the ld. CIT(E) has dismissed the appeals of the Assessee ex-parte by merely upholding the orders of the AO without considering the material available on record and also without going into the merit of the cases and, thus, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the Assessee. As such, an opportunity of hearing requires to be given to the Assessee to represent its cases before the ld. CIT(E). Even otherwise, it is trite [‘S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT’ 83 ITR 683 (Mad.)] and incumbent on the authority to decide an appeal on merit. The ld. D.R., though, has placed reliance on the 1124 & 1125-Chd-2024 – Jyoti Foundations, Ambala 4 orders of the authorities below, but has no objection if the matter is remanded to the CIT(E) for adjudication afresh.

JYOTI FOUNDATION,AMBALA CANTT. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH