STATE BANK OF INDIA RSETI SOCIETY,DEHRADUN vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5033/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 February 20195 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with an adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act was rejected ex parte by the CIT(Exemptions) because the hearing notice was returned unserved. The assessee claimed there was a postal error and requested a re-examination.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of an application for 80G approval without providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard is justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, CA
For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Hearing: 6.2.2019Pronounced: 13.02.2019

PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 2.8.2016 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Lucknow and challenges the action of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(E) in rejecting the assessee’s application for approval u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act').

2.0 The ld. AR drew our attention to para 2 of the impugned order and submitted that the assessee’s application had been dismissed ex parte on the ground that the notice for hearing had been returned unserved to the office of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(E) with the noting ‘at the aforementioned address, no society by the mentioned name is traceable’. The ld. AR submitted that apparently there seems to be some kind of mistake on the part of the postal department because the address which has been mentioned in the application was correct. The ld. AR also submitted that in the interest of substantial justice, the matter required to be re-examined by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(E) and the assessee be allowed to furnish relevant documents before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(E) as well as be provided with an adequate opportunity to present its case.

2.1 In response, the ld. C.I.T. DR submitted that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(E) had decided the issue on merits even though it was decided ex parte qua the assessee and, therefore, there was no requirement for the assessee to be provided with another opportunity. The ld. C.I.T. DR placed reliance on the findings of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(E) and vehemently argued that the appeal of the assessee deserved to be dismissed.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is undisputed that the assessee’s application for approval u/s 80G of the Act was dismissed without the assessee being able to avail the opportunity of being heard in this regard. It is undisputed that the notice for hearing was returned unserved. Further, in absence of opportunity, the assessee could not corroborate its claim with respect to approval u/s 80G of the Act. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it a fit case to be restored to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(E) for the purpose of deciding it afresh after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case. Accordingly, we restore the issue to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(E) with the direction to provide another opportunity to the assessee and thereafter pass the order in accordance with law.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13th FEBRUARY, 2019.

More judgments on Section 80G

All 6,482 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →