SHRI PARSHOTAM CHARITABLE TRUST,PARSHOTAM NIWAS SCHOOL ROAD KARNAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 532/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 June 2025Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee before rejecting the application, thereby violating the principle of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for registration under section 80G(5)(iv)(B) was rejected by the CIT(E) on the grounds that it lacked prior regular 80G approval and applied under the wrong clause. The assessee contended a violation of natural justice and presented evidence of previous approvals.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of the registration application without affording an opportunity of hearing violated the principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5)(iv)(B),Section 80G(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

O R D E R

Per Laliet Kumar (Judicial Member ) 1. Aggrieved by rejection of an application seeking registration u/s 80G(5)(iv)(B) vide impugned order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh [CIT(E)] on 27-03-2025, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. Upon perusal of impugned order, it could be seen that the registration has been denied on the ground that the assessee never had regular 80G approval in the past and the application has been preferred under wrong clause.

3.

The Ld. AR raised issue of violation of principle of natural justice and placed on record various documents to contend that the assessee was having the requisite approval u/s 80G. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under.

4.

Upon perusal of impugned order, it could prima facie be seen that no opportunity of hearing has indeed been granted to the assessee by approving authority before rejecting the registration application. The statutory provisions mandate grant of such an opportunity to the assessee and the impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice.

5.

It also emerges that the assessee holds provisional approval from 26-05-2022 to AY 2025-26. It also emerges that the assessee holds approval u/s 80G(5) vide order no.17 dated 22-10-2008, a copy fo which is on record. 6. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order is set aside and the issue of registration stand restored back to Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication of the registration application after appreciating the correct facts. Needless to add that an opportunity of hearing would be granted to the assessee. The assessee is directed to plead and prove its case.

7.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 09-06-2025.

More judgments on Section 80G(5)(iv)(B)

All 68 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5)(iv)(B) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →