M/S RAGHUNANDAN MISHRA CHARITABLE TRUST,E-57 SECTOR 63 NOIDA, H.O, GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) should have sent notices to the assessee's email address in addition to the IT portal. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity to be heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee's applications for registration under Section 12A and 80G were rejected by the CIT(E). The assessee contended that they were not adequately heard and that notices were not effectively communicated.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(E) denied registration without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and in violation of natural justice principles, specifically regarding notice communication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: and 1790/De/2023 are two separate appeals by the assessee preferred against two separate orders of CIT(E), Lucknow dated 03.09.2022 and 03.10.2022 respectively by which the CIT(E) has denied the registration u/s. 12A and 80G of the Act.
Both these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
The common grievance in both these appeals is that the CIT(E) rejected the impugned applications without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and in violation of principle of natural justice.
At the very outset, the counsel stated that the notices on the IT portal were not in the knowledge of the assessee and, therefore, the proceeding could not be attended on the specified dates.
We have carefully perused the impugned orders. Though there is mention of the issue of notice through IT portal but whether the notices were accessed by the assessee is not known. We are of the considered view that notices should have also been sent to the e-mail address of the assessee, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play we restore both the appeals to the files of the CIT(E) with a direction to decide the impugned applications afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to comply with the notices and attend the proceedings in support of its claim of registration.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Decision announced in the open court on 30.11.2023.
More judgments on Section 12A
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sanskardham Nandan, Mehsana vs CIT(Exemption), AhmedabadITA 2980/AHD/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- 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
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026