UTTARAKHAND ORGANIC COMMODITY BOARD,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(E), LUCKNOW
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) did not provide sufficient time to the assessee to furnish the required documents. Therefore, a proper opportunity of being heard was not given.
What were the facts?
The assessee applied for approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(Exemptions) demanded several documents on a short notice of one day and rejected the application when the assessee could not furnish them.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application for 80G approval without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to furnish the required documents.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
ORDER
Per N. K. Saini, AM:
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 15.05.2015 of ld. CIT(Exemptions), Lucknow.
During the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. We, therefore, proceeded ex-parte and the appeal is decided after hearing the ld. CIT DR.
Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application of the Appellant.
2. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in not giving proper opportunity to the Appellant to present its case. 2 Uttarakhand Organic Commodity Board
3. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the grounds on the basis of which the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) rejected the application of the Appellant, are factually not correct.
4. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in not understanding and properly appreciating the objects and activities of the Appellant.
5. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) is bad in law as well as on facts in so far as the reasons recorded by him are concerned.
6. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in not giving opportunity to the Appellant to give explanation on the reasons recorded by him.
7. That the Appellant craves leave to add, delete or modify any ground of appeal as and when required.”
4. The main grievance of the assessee vide Ground No. 2 relates to the proper opportunity of being heard not provided by the ld. CIT(E).
Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee moved an application for granting the approval u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The case was fixed for hearing on 14.05.2015. The ld. CIT(E) asked the assessee to furnish trust deed, registration certificate, PAN & telephone numbers, bank statement, Income Tax Returns and ownership of land & building on 15.05.2015. Since, the assessee could not produce those details and documents in the short span of one day, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application moved by the assessee. 3 Uttarakhand Organic Commodity Board 6. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. CIT DR strongly supported the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(E) and submitted that the assessee did not furnish the requisite details, therefore, the application moved by the assessee was rightly rejected by the ld. CIT(E).
We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(E) asked the assessee to furnish various details in short span of one day and rejected the application on the next day. In our opinion, sufficient time was not granted by the ld. CIT(E) to the assessee to furnish the requisite details, in other words, due and proper opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to remand this matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 11/07/2018)
More judgments on Section 80G
- Savan Dayalal Ladani, Rajkot vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1)…ITA 575/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Pareshbhai Savjibhai Khunt, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(2)(3), RajkotITA 842/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 777/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 776/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Maa Bhawani Minrals vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
