ANNADHANAM SCHEME FUND OF ARULMIGU MADHANA GOPALASWAMY THIRUKOIL,MADURAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(E)”), Chennai, dated 22.08.2025 denying the approval u/s.80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act”).

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(E) has rejected the aforesaid application ex parte order qua assessee on the ground that the assessee didn’t respond to his three (3) notices and therefore pleaded for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(E) for pursuing the grant of approval u/s.80G of the Act. The Ld.DR opposed such a plea of the assessee and submits that the assessee didn’t bother to respond to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(E) and therefore, assessee should not be given one more opportunity.

Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the assessee had applied for approval u/s.80G of the Act by filing online application in Form 10AB under the first proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(E) is noted to have directed the assessee by notice dated 30.05.2025 to furnish certain details/documents by uploading online or post which direction was not responded by the assessee. The Ld.CIT(E) is noted to have issued show cause notice on 30.07.2025 & 07.08.2025 which was also not responded by the assessee which led him to hold the application filed by the assessee as not maintainable and hence rejected the same. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned action of the Ld.CIT(E), the assessee is before us praying for restoration of the application. On a query from the Bench, ‘as to why’ the assessee didn’t respond to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(E), the Ld.AR submitted that due to technical glitches, the aforesaid notices didn’t get (AY -) Annadhanam Scheme Fund of Arulmigu- Madhana Gopalaswamy Thirukoil delivered into their e-mail account, but instead got delivered in the ‘spam’ account of the assessee which went unnoticed; and therefore, the defense of the assessee is that it was in the dark about the aforesaid directions/notices. Therefore, the assessee pleaded for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(E). Be that as it may, since the Ld.CIT(E) has passed the order ex parte qua assessee, there is violation of natural justice and therefore in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore the application back to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) with a direction to decide the grant of approval u/s.80G of the Act after hearing the assessee. The Ld.AR has undertaken to file all the relevant documents/details as called for by the Ld.CIT(E) which we expect the assessee to do diligently. With these observations, we restore the application back to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) for de novo action in accordance to law.