YASHODEEP SANSTHA GADCHIROLI,GADCHIROLI vs. ITO WARD-1, EXEMP, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 February 2025AY 2024-25Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's lapse in not appearing, decided to grant one opportunity based on the principles of natural justice. The impugned ex-parte orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's applications for renewal of 80G registration were rejected by the learned CIT(E) by passing ex-parte orders. The assessee had not appeared before the CIT(E) despite several opportunities, leading to the dismissal of their appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to appear before the CIT(E) to substantiate their case for renewal of 80G registration, despite previous non-appearance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal
For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Date of Hearing – 17/02/2025 Date of Order – 25/02/2025

O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.

These appeals by the assessee are emanating from the impugned orders dated 14/05/2024 and 09/05/2024 respectively, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune, [“learned CIT(E)”], rejecting the assessee’s applications for renewal of 80G registration vide orders passed in Form no.10AD.

2.

Before the learned CIT(E), in both these cases, the assessee did not appear despite granting several opportunities to the assessee by the learned CIT(E) which resulted in dismissing the appeals by passing ex-parte orders.

2 Yashodeep Sanstha ITA no.7-8/Nag./2025 3. Before us, during the course of hearing, the learned Counsel, Shri Abhay Agrawal, appearing on behalf of the assessee, admitting the lapse on the part of the assessee for not appearing before the learned CIT(E), however, he pleaded that if this Court grants the assessee one opportunity by restoring this appeal to the file of the learned CIT(E), so that the assessee is enable to substantiate its case before the first appellate authority. Therefore, he prayed that the appeal be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E).

4.

On the other hand, the learned D.R. submitted that despite the learned CIT(E) provided sufficient opportunities to the assessee, however, the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT(E) and not furnished relevant details. He strongly supported the orders passed by the learned CIT(E).

5.

We have heard both the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that though the learned CIT(E) granted opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its case, ultimately, the order passed by him is an ex-parte order. Therefore, we are of the opinion that by following the principles of natural justice, one opportunity should be given to the assessee to substantiate the case before the learned CIT(E). In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(E) is set aside and remit the back matter to the file of the learned CIT(E) and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh on merit and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason.

3 Yashodeep Sanstha ITA no.7-8/Nag./2025 Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, assessee’s appeals stand allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/02/2025

More judgments on Section 80G

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →