Shree Shyam Gausewa Society vs ITO Exemptions, Rohtak

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Chandigarh, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(E)] both dated 26.11.2024 passed under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

At the outset, the Registry has identified the delay of 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay has arisen on account of Revenue’s communications being sent on e-mail ID of the earlier counsel and that the same was neither intentional nor mala fide. For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation petition attributing delay for 445 days to the circumstances beyond its control, we quote Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) to condone the delay.

The appeal of the assessee vide ITA No.4361/Del/2026 is regarding the rejection of its request filed under section 80G(5)(ii) of the Act. The appeal of the assessee vide ITA No.4362/Del/2026 is regarding the rejection of its request filed under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act. As both the appeals are of the same assessee concerning common issues of rejection of its application under section 12A and 80G, they were heard together and for the purposes of convenience, adjudicated by this common order.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that its right to natural justice has been violated in as much as due opportunity of being heard has not been given before rejecting its request for grant of registration u/s 12A and 80G of the Act. The ld. Counsel accordingly requested that it be provided one last chance to defend its case and, the matter be considered for remission back to the ld. CIT(E). The ld. Counsel assured that full compliance shall be made to the statutory notices issued by the Revenue authorities.

The ld. DR placed reliance upon the orders of the lower authorities. The ld. DR however could not controvert the factum of ex-parte decision of ld. CIT(E).

We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have noted that the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected applications of the assessee without due consideration of facts on records alluding towards a non-application of mind. We have noted that the ld. CIT(E) has dismissed assessee’s application for grant of registration under section 12A and u/s 80G purely on account of non-compliance of the assessee. Reasonable opportunity of being heard is right of every tax payer. Be that as it may be in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the impugned orders of the ld. CIT(E) and remit the matter of grant of registration u/s 12A as well as u/s 80G back to ld. CIT(E) for adjudication de novo in accordance with law. Due opportunity of being heard shall be given to the assessee. The assessee shall comply with all the statutory notices and any non-compliance shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No.4361/Del/2026 and vide ITA No. 4362/Del/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes.

Finally, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.