SHREE PATANWADA BHA vs. AR SAMAJ BAHUCHARAJI DAHRMASHALA TRUST,PATANVS.THE CIT- EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found the order to be ex parte due to improper service of notice. To prevent miscarriage of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's application for approval under Section 80G was rejected ex parte by the CIT(E). The assessee argued that notices were uploaded to the portal and not sent to their email, leading to non-compliance.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex parte order passed by the CIT(E) rejecting the 80G approval was justified, considering the alleged improper service of notice to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED&
O R D E R
PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM:
The instant appeal filed at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the CIT(E) Ahmedabad, under Section 80G(5) of the Act.
The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte one as the case of the assessee, compliance could not be done as per the notice served upon the assessee since the notice was uploaded in the portal and not send to the assessee to the email provided to the department. [Shree Patanwada Bhavsar Samaj Bahucharaji Dharmashala Trust vs. CIT(E)] - 2 - The screenshot of these two notices send to the assessee was referred by the Ld. AR appearing in the paper book at Page No.42 dated 12.12.2022 and Page No. 49 dated 06.01.2023. However, finally, the order of passed by the Ld. CIT(E) rejecting the approval under Section 80G of the Act was sent to the assessee to its email. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the authorities below but failed to justify as to why notice issued by the Ld. CIT(E) were not sent to the assessee’s email. As admittedly the order is an ex parte one rejecting the approval under Section 80G of the Act, we, in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice, find it fit and proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for adjudication of the same de novo. We also make it clear that all points relating to the issue are kept open for the Ld. CIT(E) to decide upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter. The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to pass order strictly in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
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 →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026