Srishti Social & Educational Welfare Society Vs CIT(Exemption) (ITAT Delhi)
Notices Sent to Old Email Despite Updated Details: ITAT Restores Section 80G Application for Fresh Hearing
Facts of the case
The assessee society appealed against the rejection of its application for approval under section 80G, filed in Form 10AB. The CIT(Exemption), Delhi, had dismissed the application by an order dated 25 November 2024.
The society contended that the application had been rejected ex parte without an effective opportunity of hearing. Its explanation was that the Department sent hearing notices to an old email address appearing in an earlier income-tax return, although a new email address had been furnished in the section 80G application.
The appeal also contained errors in identifying the provision under which the impugned order had been passed. The Tribunal therefore first addressed the correct scope of the appeal before considering the request for a fresh hearing.
Errors in Form 36 and grounds of appeal
The matter was initially heard on 14 February 2025 and was subsequently listed for clarification. The grounds referred to denial of registration under section 12A, whereas Form 36 described the appeal as relating to denial of approval under section 10(23A).
At the clarification hearing, the authorised representative explained that these references were inadvertent mistakes. The appeal was intended to challenge the rejection of the society’s section 80G application, and the society had already obtained registration under section 12A.
The representative made an endorsement on the Tribunal’s file confirming that he was pressing the grounds concerning section 80G approval alone. The Revenue did not object to this clarification.
The Tribunal accepted the explanation and proceeded to adjudicate the appeal according to its clarified subject matter. The incorrect statutory references therefore did not prevent consideration of the actual grievance.
Hearing notices and the email mismatch
The CIT(Exemption) had issued notices on 10 June 2024, 13 September 2024, 9 October 2024 and 7 November 2024. The society had not complied with these notices.
Its representative explained that the notices had been sent to the old email address of the counsel or assessee recorded in the return, rather than the new email address supplied when filing the approval application.
According to the society, no notice was sent to the updated address, and the notices were consequently not received. It requested restoration of the application to the CIT(Exemption) for examination on merits.
The Departmental Representative stated that there was no objection to remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Tribunal’s reasoning
The Tribunal noted both the issuance of the hearing notices and the explanation offered for non-compliance. It considered the claim that the notices had gone to the old email address despite updated particulars being supplied in the application.
In the interest of justice, the Bench decided that the society should receive another opportunity to present its case before the approval authority.
The order did not undertake a detailed determination of the technical validity of electronic service. Nor did it hold that every notice sent to an earlier email address must necessarily be invalid. Its relief was based on the circumstances presented, the explanation for non-receipt and the need for a fresh merits examination.
The Tribunal similarly dealt with the mistakes in Form 36 and the grounds as bona fide errors that had been clarified through counsel’s endorsement, with no objection from the Department.
Decision
The Tribunal restored the section 80G application to the CIT(Exemption) for de novo adjudication.
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. This meant that the society obtained a fresh opportunity to establish its eligibility; it did not obtain section 80G approval through the Tribunal’s order.
The merits of the application remained open for examination by the CIT(Exemption).
Author’s comments
The order highlights a practical difficulty in electronic proceedings: issuing several notices does not necessarily resolve an explanation that they were sent to an outdated communication address. Where an applicant supplies updated particulars in the very application being adjudicated, those particulars become relevant to assessing whether it had an effective opportunity to respond.
For a similar challenge, the useful evidence would be the filed application showing the updated email address, the acknowledgement and the communication records identifying the address to which notices were sent. These records can make the explanation for non-compliance concrete.
The decision also demonstrates the importance of promptly correcting mistakes in appeal papers. Here, the actual impugned order was identified, counsel expressly confined the appeal to section 80G, and the Revenue raised no objection. The Tribunal could therefore address the intended dispute.
Finally, section 12A registration and section 80G approval remain distinct matters in this order. The society’s statement that it already held section 12A registration clarified the appeal’s scope; it did not establish automatic entitlement to section 80G approval. That question was left to the competent authority on remand.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal in ITA No. 25/Del/2025 has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.11.2024 in DIN & Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1070605839(1), wherein the application filed by the assessee for approval u/s 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) in Form No. 10AB was dismissed by the learned CIT(Exemption), Delhi.
2. This matter was initially heard by the DB on 14th February, 2025 but later it was fixed for clarification as the grounds of appeal pertain to challenge to denial of registration u/s 12A while in Form No. 36 it was mentioned that the appeal is filed against denial of approval u/s 10(23A). At the time of hearing it was submitted and clarified by the learned counsel for the assessee CA Shri Pradeep Kumar that there was a mistake in filing form no. 36 where inadvertently it is stated that this appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the learned CIT(Exemption) u/s 10(23A)of the Act. Rather it was an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order denying approval u/s 80G of the Act by ld PCIT. Learned counsel for the assessee has made the endorsement in the file that he is pressing grounds of appeal in respect of denial of approval u/s 80G only in ITA no. 25/Del/2025. The ld counsel for the assessee submitted that it was a bonafide error and prayers were made to consider the aforesaid contentions of the assessee. It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee has already got approval u/s 12A. The prayers were made to consider this appeal having been filed against dismissal by ld. PCIT for approval u/s 80G. The ld. DR has no objection to the said contentions of the assessee.
2.1 It was submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that the learned CIT(Exemption) has dismissed the application of the assessee for seeking approval u/s 80G submitted by the assessee in form 10AB by passing ex parte order and proper opportunity of hearing was not granted. It was submitted that the notices were sent by email by the ld. PCIT to the old email Id of the counsel or the assessee which was given at the time of filing of return of income, but the new email id of the counsel of the assesseewas given while filing application of approval u/s 80G , but , however, no email was sent to the said email ID. It was prayed that the matter may be restored back to the file of the learned CIT(Exemption) for reconsideration of the application of the assessee on merits.
3. Learned Sr. DR has no objection if the matter is restored back to the file of learned CIT(Exemption).
4. After hearing both the parties and the contentions made by the learned counsel for the assessee CA Shri Pradeep Kumar that there was inadvertent mistake in filing the grounds of appeal/Form No. 36 wherein there was a claim for challenging the order of denying approval of registration u/s 12A/10(23A) of the Act. Rather the assessee is challenging the denial of approval of registration u/s 80G of the Act, and the ld. Counsel for the assessee has made endorsement in the file to that effect, and the department having no objection, we are proceeding to adjudicate this appeal. We have observed that learned CIT(Exemption) issued notices to the assessee on 10.6.2024, 13.09.2024; 9.10.2024 and on 7.11.2024 ,but the assessee failed to comply with the said notices. The assessee has explained that the notices were not received by the assessee as the ld. PCIT sent the notices at the old email id of the counsel of the assessee which was given in ITR while in the application for approval u/s 80G, new email id was given. It is claimed that no notices were received by the assessee.In the interest of justice ,we are inclined to restore the matter to the file of learned CIT(Exemption) for de novo adjudication of the application of the assessee for approval of registration u/s 80G of the Act. Appeal of the assesseeis allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th March, 2025.
