IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5237/DEL./2016 B.R.M. EDUCATION & WELFARE SOCIETY, VS. CIT (EXEMP TIONS), VILLAGE BARSEEN, TEHSIL & DISTT. FATEHABAD. CHANDI GARH. (PAN : AACAB0177G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. APARNA KARAN, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 02.01.2018 DATE OF ORDER : 23.01.2018 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPELLANT, B.R.M. EDUCATION & WELFARE SOCIETY (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY) BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORD ER DATED 29.07.2016 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) ERRED IN REJECTING THE EXEMPTI ON U/S 80G(5)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 : I) ORDER DATED 29.07.2016 PASSED U/S 80G(5)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND REJECTED BY CIT (EXEMPTION S), CHANDIGARH WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY, WH ICH IS ILLEGAL IN THE EYES OF LAW. ITA NO.5237/DEL/2016 2 II) ORDER DATED 29.07.2016 PASSED U/S 80G(5)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND REJECTED BY CIT (EXEMPTION S), CHANDIGARH WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH IS ILLEGAL IN THE EYES OF LAW. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ON THE BASIS OF REGISTRA TION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT), ASSESSEE SOCIETY MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S 80G WHICH HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT ON FAILU RE OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DETAILS OF CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES B EING CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. 3. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASS ED BY LD. CIT (E) . 4. ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED TO PUT IN APPEARANCE DESPITE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICES AND CONSEQUENTLY, WE PROCEE DED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD. C IT DR AS WELL AS ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. CIT DR FOR THE REVENUE TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON AND ORDERS P ASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ITA NO.5237/DEL/2016 3 6. BARE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) GOES TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T BEEN PROVIDED WITH ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BECAUSE IN ITIALLY THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR 07.07.2016 AND ON 11.07.2016, AN APPL ICATION WAS RECEIVED BY LD. CIT (E) THROUGH POST REQUESTING FOR ADJOURNMENT AND IT WAS FIXED FOR 22.07.2016. WHEN THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS BASED IN A VILLAGE THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD IF AS SESSEE HAS BEEN INTIMATED AS TO THE NEXT DATE OF ADJOURNMENT I.E. 2 9.07.2016 ON WHICH DATE APPLICATION WAS DECIDED. SO, IN THE GIVE N CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT L D. CIT (E) BEING A QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A DEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY BEFORE DECIDING THE APPLICATION. CONSEQUENTLY, IMPUGNED ORDER IS S ET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (E) TO DECIDE AFRESH AFTER PROVIDIN G ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 23 RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2018 TS ITA NO.5237/DEL/2016 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(E), CHANDIGARH. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.