AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is a batch of two appeals pertaining to the same assessee. While ITA No.1028/Del/2026 pertains to an adverse order u/s 12(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), passed by Ld. CIT(Exemption)-Chandigarh; ITA No.1029/Del/2026 pertains to an adverse order u/s 80G of the Act again passed by Ld. CIT(Exemption). Both these orders are dated 11.11.2025. For the sake of convenience both these appeals are being disposed of through a single order, whereby ITA No.1028 will be the lead case.
In this case, it is seen that in paras 3.1 & 3.2 at pages 5 to 6 of the impugned order that the opportunities provided by the Ld. CIT(E) were not availed of by the assessee and thereafter an adverse order has been passed in an ex parte manner.
The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with several grounds challenging the one-sided order which has been passed in an ex parte manner.
Before us the Ld. AR argued with the help of a short paper book and stated that the opportunities provided by the Ld. CIT(E) were inadequate and the assessee has suffered on account of the ex parte order. It was prayed that this matter may be remanded back for fresh adjudication.
The Ld. DR relied on the findings given in the impugned order.
We have considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the documents before us. \We find that indeed the assessee could not make any presentation of facts before the Ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, in the interest of substantive justice, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on the basis of facts to be presented by the assessee.
Since the application u/s 80G of the Act has been rejected on the ground that the application u/s 12A of the Act was not accepted, therefore, here also the impugned order is set aside and even this issue is remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.