Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH.
Before: SH. RAJPAL YADAV, HONBLE VICE- & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, HONBLE
ORDER Per: KRINWANT SAHAY, AM:
Both the instant appeals of the same assessee are directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh,[in brevity the ‘CIT (E)’], ex parte order passed u/s 12AB & 80G (5) of the Income Tax Act 1961, dated 23.09.2022 separately. and 454/Chandi/2024 2 Assessment Year: 2023-24 2 2. At the very outset both the appeals are related to application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and u/s 80G(5) of the Act of the same assessee.
Considering both the parties is taken as lead case.
The assessee has taken the following grounds: “
1. The impugned order is bad both on facts and law and is liable to be quashed.
2. That the ld. CIT(Exemptions)rejected the application for final approval of registration u/s 12AB in an ex parte order without allowing opportunity of being heard an without ensuring proper service of notice for fixation of the proceedings.
2. The appellant crave leave to add, amend, withdraw further grounds of appeal till the appeal is heard and disposed off”.
At the very outset the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted during proceedings before us that the order passed by the ld. CIT(E) is an ex parte order without allowing opportunity of being heard and without ensuring proper service of notice to the assessee. It was also submitted that the notices were not complied for simple reason that the assessee could not receive any notice issued by the ld. CIT(E). and 454/Chandi/2024 3 Assessment Year: 2023-24
The ld. AR of the assessee also filed affidavit for both the appeals which are reproduced as under: and 454/Chandi/2024 4 Assessment Year: 2023-24 and 454/Chandi/2024 5 Assessment Year: 2023-24
The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(E).
We have heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in record. The application of final registration and application of 80G are rejected. The assessee has non-complied during the hearing before the ld. CIT(E). On perusal of the documents, we find that no notice was ever received by the assessee. Accordingly, the compliance could not be made by the assessee. The ld. counsel for the AR requested that in the interest of justice the matter should be remanded back to the ld. CIT(E) for fresh order. The ld. DR did not have any objection on this issue. Accordingly, this appeal is remanded back to the ld. CIT(E) for fresh order. 8.1 In our considered view the reasonable opportunity was not given to the assessee for submission of his evidence and documents. We are, therefore, of the view that in the interest of justice would be served if the impugned order is set aside and the matters are remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for consideration there of afresh. We are not expressing any views on the merits of the case so as to limit the proceeding before the ld. CIT(E). Further, the assessee should be diligent and comply the notice of the revenue. Needless to say, the assessee should get a reasonable opportunity of hearing. and 454/Chandi/2024 6 Assessment Year: 2023-24
As both the appeals are of same nature and fact. So, is mutatis mutandis applicable to the No. 453/Chandi/2024 and followed accordingly.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No. 454/Chandi/2024 and 453/Chandi/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes.