Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two separate appeals against orders from the CIT(E), Delhi, which rejected its applications for registration under section 12A and for granting a certificate under section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that the rejections were made without providing an opportunity of being heard, and the notice of rejection lacked an e-mail address, raising doubts about proper service.
Held
The Tribunal found that the notice of rejection did not contain the assessee's e-mail address, making it impossible to ascertain where the notices were served. Consequently, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored both appeals to the CIT(E), Delhi, directing them to decide the applications afresh after providing the assessee a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting applications for registration u/s 12A and certificate u/s 80G without affording an opportunity of being heard and due to improper service of notice.
Sections Cited
12A, 80G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA
BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & 2810/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2023-24 & 2022-23 The Umoya Foundation Vs. CIT (Exemption) 581, Excellence New Delhi Apartments, Plot 4, Sector- 18A, Dwarka, New Delhi- 110078 PAN No.AADTT1075B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Rahul Tyagi, CA Respondent by Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR Date of hearing: 29/01/2024 Date of Pronouncement: 29/01/2024 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:
2810/Del/2023 are two separate appeals by the assessee preferred against two separate orders of CIT(E), Delhi dated 30.01.2023 by which the CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee for registration u/s. 12A of the Act and for granting certificate u/s. 80G of the Act.
Before us the Counsel for the assessee stated that the CIT(E) has rejected the applications without affording any opportunity of being heard. The Counsel showed the screen shot of the alleged notice from the IT portal and pointed out that the notice does not have any e-mail address on which the said notice have been served.
We have carefully considered the screen shot. We find that the notice does not have the e-mail address of the assessee and, therefore, it is not known where the notices have been served. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play we restore both the appeals to the files of the CIT(E), Delhi. The CIT(E) is directed to decide the applications after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
Decision announced in the open court on 29.01.2024.