BO-GANGKAR MAHABUDDHA CHARITABLE AND WELFARE SOCIETY,NAINITAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) LUCKNOW, NEW DELHI

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the orders impugned have been passed ex-parte, wherein Ld. CIT(E)has not verified the documents produced by the Appellant and without providing opportunity to the appellant to produce further documents and submissions the orders impugned has been passed. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.

The Ld. Department's Representative vehemently submitted that the appellant has failed to substantiate the claim in support of the applications filed before the authority below, therefore, the applications have been rightly rejected which requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal. Thus, relying on the orders of the Lower Authority, sought for dismissal of the Appeals.

We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the order impugned, the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application on the ground thatthe applicant has failed to file documentary evidences in support of its claim. Considering the fact that the Assessee is claimed to be conducting charitable activities, the Ld. Ld. CIT(E) should have provided opportunity to the appellant to produce the documents and should have decided the application on its merit. Thus, we set aside the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and remand the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to decide the applications afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. The Appellant is also at liberty to produce all the requisite documents to substantiate the claim of the Appellant.

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.