Case Law Details
Gyanodaya Bharat Trust Vs CIT (ITAT Chennai)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai bench has set aside an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] that rejected an application for renewal of 80G approval filed by Gyanodaya Bharat Trust. The Tribunal’s decision stemmed from the assessee’s claim that notices from the CIT(E) landed in their email’s spam folder, preventing them from responding.
Gyanodaya Bharat Trust had filed an online application in Form No. 10AB under Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking renewal of its 80G approval. The trust had previously been granted provisional approval under the same section. However, the CIT(E), through an order dated December 9, 2024, rejected this application.
During the ITAT proceedings, the authorized representative (AR) for the assessee-trust informed the Tribunal that the CIT(E)’s order was ex parte. The AR contended that the notices issued by the CIT(E) on October 28, 2024, and November 18, 2024, were inadvertently directed to the assessee’s “SPAM” email account. This technical glitch, the AR argued, made the assessee unaware of the notices, thereby precluding a response and preventing their appearance. Consequently, the non-compliance was not deliberate, and the assessee sought another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(E).
Conversely, the departmental representative (DR) opposed granting the assessee another chance.
After reviewing the submissions and records, the ITAT noted that the rejection of the renewal application was solely based on the assessee’s failure to respond to the CIT(E)’s notices. Acknowledging the assessee’s assertion that the notices went to spam, the Tribunal found that the trust was deprived of a proper opportunity to be heard. This situation, the ITAT concluded, constituted a violation of the fundamental principle of natural justice, which mandates a fair hearing before an adverse order is passed.
In alignment with this principle, the ITAT decided to set aside the impugned order of the CIT(E) and restore the application back to the CIT(E)’s file for a fresh examination (de novo). The Tribunal directed the assessee to provide all requisite documents to the CIT(E) for a merit-based examination. The ITAT also noted the assessee’s email ID for future correspondence.
The appeal was thus allowed for statistical purposes, mandating the CIT(E) to pass a fresh order after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard. This decision underscores the judiciary’s emphasis on ensuring due process and natural justice in administrative proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee-trust against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(E)”), Chennai, dated 09.12.2024 rejecting an online application filed by the assessee on 29.06.2024 in Form No.10AB u/s.80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) seeking approval u/s.80G of the Act.
2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(E) is an ex parte order and she pleads that the notices alleged to have been sent by the Ld.CIT(E) have been dropped in the ‘SPAM’ account of the assessee and therefore, the assessee was not aware of the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(E) which prevented the assessee from responding to the notices issued by him. Therefore, according to the Ld.AR, the non-appearance/non-response to the notices was not deliberate and therefore, pleads for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(E).
3. Per contra, the Ld. DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee.
4. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, it is noted that the assessee trust has been granted provisional approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act and has applied for renewal of it which has been rejected only on the ground that the assessee failed to respond to the notices [dated 28.10.2024 & 18.11.2024] issued by the Ld.CIT(E). In this regard, the AO brought to our notice that notices issued by the Ld.CIT(E) went to the ‘SPAM’ account of the assessee and therefore, the assessee wasn’t aware of such notices. Be that as it may, since the assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before the Ld.CIT(E), there is a violation of natural justice and therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(E) and restore the application back to his file for de novo examination in accordance to law. Having said so, the assessee is directed to file all the requisite documents as called for by the Ld.CIT(E) so that the Ld.CIT(E) can examine the same on its merits and take action in accordance to law. The Ld AR brought to our notice the e-mail ID for correspondence : v.ramachandranoffice@gmail.com. This id may also be considered by Ld CIT(E) while issuing notices to assessee.
5. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the Ld.CIT(E) to pass orders afresh in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.
6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 26th day of May, 2025, in Chennai.
Author Bio
