SHREE PRAHALAD AHUJA FOUNDATION,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), RAIPUR

ITAT-Raipur Page 1 of 8 Shree Prahalad Ahuja Foundation

The grounds of appeal

Before coming to facts, its apt to voice that, the grounds raised in the present appeal are inconsonance with rule 8 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short “ITAT Rules”], however for the purpose of adjudication, it shall suffice to articulate that, the sole & substantive ground is directed against the rejection of grant of approval sought u/s 80G of the Act.

Briefly stated the facts borne out of the records are; 4.1 The appellant filed an application in Form No 10G on 21/01/2019 u/s 12AA seeking the grant of approval for 80G before the Ld. CIT(E), wherein in- order to verify the object, activities and to ascertain the fulfilment of condition laid in section 12AA, the appellant was put to first notice dt. 19/0/2019 thereby calling upon the compliance, this remained unresponded by the appellant.

When the matter called up for hearing, none represented the assessee, mindful to the conduct of the appellant showing no appearance on many occasions, we in the interest of justice proceeded to ITAT-Raipur Page 4 of 8 Shree Prahalad Ahuja Foundation 24 of the ITAT- Rules, which empowers this Tribunal to decide the appeal filed by the appellant ex–parte on merits where the appellant does not appear in person or through an authorised representative and the same is done placing on record a no-objection from the respondent revenue. It is needless to mention further that, the proviso to the said rule carves out an exception by empowering the Tribunal to recall the ex–parte order, if the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies placing evidential material before the Tribunal that, there was sufficient cause for his non– appearance when the appeal was called for hearing and in the event of failure to substantiate the non- appearance, the recall exercise dies out.

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of “ITAT Rules”, perused the material placed on record, case laws relied upon by the appellant as well the respondent and duly considered the facts of the case ITAT-Raipur Page 5 of 8 Shree Prahalad Ahuja Foundation in the light of settled legal position forewarned to either parties.

The facts of the case are that the appellant is a registered society which engaged in charitable activities and applied for grant of approval u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act. Considering that there was no adverse material against the appellant to come to the conclusion that it was not a charitable institution or organisation and, therefore, it was allowed a registration u/s 12A of the Act and as of today the appellant stands registered as a charitable institution u/s 12A of the Act. However the appellant in-spite of reasonable opportunity failed to comply with the necessary direction of the Ld. CIT(E) which ultimately laid to rejection of application filed for grant of 80G of the Act on technical reasons.

In this context, the Tribunal makes a note that, the principle of “Audi alteram partem” is the basic concept of natural justice, and the expression implies that a person must be given an opportunity to defend ITAT-Raipur Page 6 of 8 Shree Prahalad Ahuja Foundation himself, and principle is a sine qua non of every civilized society. The right to notice, right to present case and evidence, right to rebut adverse evidence, right to cross-examination, right to legal representation, disclosure of evidence to party, report of inquiry to be shown to the other party and reasoned decisions or speaking orders. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its landmark decision rendered in “Maneka Gandhi Vs UOI” reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 has laid down that, the rule of fair hearing is necessary before passing any order, the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective and same should not be for namesake, it should not be a paper opportunity, the doctrine of natural justice is a facet of fair play in action and no person shall be saddled with a liability without being heard.

In the extant case, the submission made by the appellant on 23/07/2019 did not productively comply with the requirements due to technical issues with the system which has been duly acknowledged by the Ld. ITAT-Raipur Page 7 of 8 Shree Prahalad Ahuja Foundation CIT(E), hence for the reason, we without commenting on the merits of the case, deem fit to remand back the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for according one more effective opportunity to the appellant but with a direction that, the appellant shall comply therewith without seeking any unreasoned adjournment.

Resultantly, the appeal of the appellant is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE in above terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this MONDAY 26th Day of December, 2022.