FETNA TRUST,COIMBATORE vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1073/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 June 2024Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(Exemptions). The application was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision after allowing the assessee one more opportunity to submit documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an application in Form 10AB for registration under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(Exemptions) rejected the application ex parte as the assessee failed to provide requested documents, citing internet/computer glitches for non-receipt of notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Exemptions) was justified in passing an ex parte order without ensuring proper service of notice to the assessee, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 24.06.2024Pronounced: 27.06.2024

आदेश / O R D E R

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), (hereinafter in short ‘the Ld.CIT(E)’), Chennai, dated 27.10.2023 rejecting the application filed on 25.04.2023 in Form 10AB under clause (iii) of first proviso to Sec.80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short ‘the Act’).

2.

At the outset, it is noted that there is delay of ‘113’ days in filing of this appeal and assessee has filed Condonation petition. Having perused the same, we are satisfied that there is reasonable cause for (AY -) Fetna Trust :: 2 ::

the delay. So, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.

1.

3. The Ld.AR of the assessee pointed out that the Ld.CIT(E) has passed an ex parte order qua assessee, since assessee didn’t respond to his notice. According to the assessee, it has not received notice of hearing due to some glitches in the internet/computer. Therefore, he prays for one more opportunity.

3.

Per contra, the Ld.DR does not want us to give assessee one more innings.

4.

Having heard both the parties and after perusal of records, we note that impugned order of the Ld.CIT(E) is an ex parte order qua assessee.

We note that the Ld.CIT(E) had directed the assessee to file relevant documents, which, according to the Ld.CIT(E), assessee failed to file and instead sought adjournment, but didn’t file the relevant documents.

Therefore, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. According to the Ld.AR, omission to file documents called for by the Ld.CIT(E) is not deliberate and given an opportunity, the assessee undertakes to file all the documents called for by the Ld.CIT(E). Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the assessee and therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(E) and restore the application dated 25.04.2023 back (AY -) Fetna Trust to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) and direct him to decide the application in accordance to law and the assessee is also directed to be diligent and file relevant documents/written submissions before the Ld.CIT(E) and the Ld.CIT(E) to decide the application in accordance to law.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 27th day of June, 2024, in Chennai.

More judgments on Section 80G(5)

All 2,236 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →