EMERGING MEDICINE FORUM,CHANDIGARH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH , 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 merely uploading a notice on the ITBA portal does not constitute effective service. The principles of natural justice require proper and adequate opportunity for the assessee to present its case.
What were the facts?
The assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB was rejected ex-parte by the CIT(Exemptions). The assessee contended that no notice of hearing was received, and the rejection was based solely on alleged non-compliance via the ITBA portal.
What were the issues?
Whether an ex-parte order rejecting registration under Section 12AB is valid when the assessee claims no effective notice of hearing was received, and if uploading a notice on the ITBA portal constitutes proper service.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI A.D.JAIN & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
आदेश/ORDER
PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT
This is assessee's appeal for assessment year 2023-24 against the order dated 03.01.2024 passed by the ld. CIT(Exemptions) Chandigarh. The following grounds have been taken : “1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions) has erred in law in passing an ex parte order rejecting the registration sought under section 12AB which is against the Principals of Natural Justice and as such the order passed is arbitrary and unjustified.
2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax( Exemptions) has erred in rejecting the registration ex-parte only on the basis of ITA 90/CHD/2024 A.Y.2023-24 2 alleged non-compliance on part of the assessee when in fact no email/notice was received by the assessee to check the portal and as such the order passed is arbitrary and unjustified.
Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has erred in law as well as on facts in rejecting registration under section 12AB of the Act which is arbitrary & unjustified.
4. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.
5. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts of the ease and is. thus, untenable.”
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited 2. our attention to the impugned order of the ld.CIT(E) to submit that the same is an ex-parte order. He has submitted that the ld.CIT(E) has summarily rejected the application of the assessee, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present its case. He has submitted that no notice of date of hearing was served by the ld.CIT(E), either through physical mode or through e-mail etc. That the notice of date of hearing was allegedly uploaded on ITBA Portal and the assessee was not aware of uploading of any such notice regarding date of hearing.
The ld. DR could not rebut the aforesaid factual position.
We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. It is found that various notices fixing the date of hearing
ITA 90/CHD/2024 A.Y.2023-24 3 were issued through ITBA Portal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that no such notice of hearing was ever received.
Merely uploading of information about the date of hearing on the Income Tax Portal is not an effective service of notice. The matter now stands covered by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of ‘Munjal BSU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Ludhiana through its authorized signatory Shri Bharat Goyal Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (E), Chandigarh’, in CWP 21028-2023 (O&M), wherein, vide order dated 04.03.2024, their Lordships have held that the provisions of Section 282(1) of the Income Tax Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, envisage that it is essential that before any action is taken, a communication of the notice must be in terms of these provisions; that these provisions do not make mention of communication to be “deemed” by placing the notice on the e-portal of the Department; that an pragmatic view has always to be adopted in these circumstances; that an individual or a company is not expected to keep the e- portal of the Department open all the times so as to have knowledge of what the Department is supposed to be doing with regard to the submissions of forms, etc.; and that the principles of natural justice are inherent in the Income Tax provisions and ITA 90/CHD/2024 A.Y.2023-24 4 the same are required to be necessarily followed. Accordingly, the impugned order of the ld.CIT(E) is, hereby set aside with a direction to the ld.CIT(E) to decide the appeal of the assessee afresh after giving proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(E).
The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 05th August,2024.
More judgments on Section 12AB
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sheo Narayan Trust, Khajpura vs CIT Exemption, PatnaITA 554/PAT/2026[2025-2026]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-2026
- Ss Early Learning Society, Hyderabad vs CIT (Exemption), HyderabadITA 1208/HYD/2025[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- 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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026