MADHAV HELPING HANDS FOUNDATION,AMLOH vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal held that merely uploading information on the Income Tax Portal does not constitute effective service of notice. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside due to lack of proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee's application for registration under Section 80G was rejected by the CIT(E) without providing an opportunity for a hearing. The CIT(E) allegedly uploaded the notice of hearing on the Income Tax Portal, which the assessee claims was not effectively communicated.
What were the issues?
Whether the uploading of a hearing notice on the Income Tax Portal constitutes valid service of notice, and if an ex-parte order passed without effective notice is sustainable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
Order PER AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP : The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh dated 18/01/2023. 2. The assessee in this appeal has contested the action of the ld.CIT(E) in rejecting the application of the assessee for registration u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
At the outset, the Id. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to 3. the impugned order of the Id. 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, through e-mail or registered post etc. That the notice of date of hearing was allegedly uploaded on Income Tax Portal and the assessee was not aware of uploading of any such notice regarding date of hearing. It was further submitted that the assessee has sought information under RTI wherein it was stated that “all notices/orders/letters issued by AO, CPC or any other income tax authority are transmitted electronically in e-proceedings module on e-filing portal under respective user ID on the date of issue of such notices/order/letters. Referring to Rule 127(2)(b), it was submitted that for communication delivered or transmitted electronically, it is essential that the same be addressed at the email address of the assessee and which has not happened in the instant case. It was accordingly submitted that no service of notice was ever affected on the assessee and therefore, in interest of justice, the assessee be allowed an opportunity to represent its case and the matter be remanded to the file of ld CIT(E) to decide the same afresh after providing opportunity to the assessee.
The Id. DR has relied on the order of the ld CIT(E), at the same time, has not expressed any reservation whether the matter is remitted back to the file of the ld CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
We have heard the rival contentions. Merely uploading of information about the date of hearing on the Income Tax Portal is not an effective service of notice as per the provisions of Section 282 of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 127(2)(b) of Income tax Rules. The impugned order of the ld. CIT(E) is, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law. The same 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 Id. CIT (E) will serve notice of hearing on the assessee through physical mode as well as through electronic mode on the email address provided by the assessee. The assessee will participate in the proceedings and submit necessary information and documentation as called for and as advised.
The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 23/01/2024 िव"म "सह यादव आकाश दीप जैन (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (AAKASH DEEP JAIN) लेखा सद"य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा"य" / VICE PRESIDENT AG Date: 23/01/2024
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 →- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026