JANHIT SAMITI (REGD.),PATIALA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not receive proper notice and thus could not represent their case. Consequently, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) to decide afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee's application for registration under Section 80G(5)(iii) was rejected by the CIT(E) due to non-prosecution. The assessee claimed they did not receive notices sent to their email and that notices were only issued on the e-filing portal, which they argued is not effective service.
What were the issues?
Whether the rejection of registration due to non-prosecution was valid when the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices and ineffective service.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(E), Chandigarh dt. 18/01/2023, where the assessee’s application seeking registration under Clause (iii) of first proviso to Section 80G(5) was rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) on account of non prosecution.
During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee did not receive any of the notices so stated to have been issued to the assessee on the email id provided while applying for the approval and all the notices have been issued on the e-filing portal which cannot be taken as an effective service of notice and therefore, due to lack of communication, the assessee could not represent its case before the Ld. CIT(E). It was submitted that the assessee be allowed an opportunity to represent its case before the Ld. CIT(E) and matter may accordingly be set aside.
The Ld. DR is heard who has not raised any specific objection where the matter is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(E).
As submitted by the ld AR and not specifically objected to by the ld CIT/DR, the notices have not been served on the assessee and the assessee couldn’t be heard on merits resulting in passing of the impugned order on account of non-prosecution. In light of the same and keeping into account, the principle of substantial justice, we believe that the assessee deserves another opportunity and the matter is accordingly set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to decide the same afresh as per law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 5. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 17/12/2024. परेश म. जोशी िव"म िसंह यादव (PARESH M. JOSHI) ( VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) "ाियक सद" / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखासद"/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
More judgments on Section 80G(5)
- Nikunj Mahendrabhai Adani, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2026/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 592/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 591/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
- The Divine Life Society, Jaipur vs Exemption Ward 1, JaipurITA 1491/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- The Divine Life Society, Jaipur vs Exemption Ward 1, JaipurITA 1484/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026