Notice uploaded on Portal but not mailed: ITAT directs reconsideration of Section 12A & 80G applications

Raghunandan Mishra Charitable Trust Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Delhi)

Notice uploaded on Portal but not mailed: ITAT directs reconsideration of Section 12& 80G applications

ITA No.1791/Del/2023 and 1790/Del/2023 were appeals filed by Raghunandan Mishra Charitable Trust against separate orders of the CIT(E), Lucknow. These orders, dated 03.09.2022 and 03.10.2022 respectively, denied the trust’s registration under sections 12A and 80G of the Income Tax Act.

The primary grievance in both appeals was that the CIT(E) had rejected the applications without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee for being heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice.

ITAT Delhi’s Decision

• The appeals were heard together and the ITAT Delhi observed that notices were uploaded on the IT portal, but there was ambiguity regarding whether the assessee accessed these notices.
• The ITAT Delhi held that adequate opportunity of being heard is crucial and notices should have also been sent to the assessee’s email address.
• In the interest of justice and fair play, the ITAT Delhi directed the CIT(E) to reconsider both applications afresh. The CIT(E) was instructed to provide a reasonable and adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case and support its claim for registration under sections 12A and 80G.
• The trust was directed to comply with the notices and attend the proceedings as required to substantiate its registration claims.
• The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, indicating that the decision favored the assessee on procedural grounds rather than on the substantive merits of the case.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI

ITA No.1791/Del/2023 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.

2. Both these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

7. Decision announced in the open court on 30.11.2023.