VIDYA JYOTI CHARITABLE TRUST ,MANDI GOBINDGARH vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh, dated 13.10.2022, for the Assessment Year 2023-24, raising the following grounds:

At the outset, it has been submitted by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee that the sole grievance of the Assessee is that the ld. CIT(E) has erred in passing the impugned ex-parte order, dated 13.10.2022 without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Assessee, which is against the principles of natural justice; that none of the notices of hearing and letters as mentioned in the impugned order were served upon the Assessee; and that the notices of hearing were uploaded only on the portal and no notice was sent either through registered post or e-mail; that the order passed u/s 12AB was also not serviced as per law and that only on 30.3.2023, at the time of the visit to CPC portal the deemed service was reflected on 30.3.2023. It has further been submitted that the impugned ex-parte order, passed

The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

Heard. We have gone through the order of the ld. CIT (E) and find that the ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application of the Assessee for approval ex-parte and disposed of the same as being deficient in factual evidences in the absence of the requisite submissions and appearance of the Assessee at the scheduled hearings, without considering the material available on record, and also without giving due opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. As such, an opportunity of hearing requires to be given to the Assessee to represent his case fully before the ld. CIT(E). Even otherwise, it is trite [‘S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT’ 83 ITR 683 (Mad.)] and incumbent on the authority to decide an appeal on merit in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

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 Goel Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), 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 a 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 the same are required to be necessarily followed.

The ld. D.R., though, has placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below, she has no objection if the matter is remanded to the CIT(E) for adjudication afresh.

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed, for statistical purposes.