JYOTI FOUNDATION,AMBALA CANTT. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 1125/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Jyoti Foundation, a charitable trust, which appealed against the orders of the CIT(E) rejecting its applications for registration under section 12AA and exemption under section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The primary contention was that the CIT(E) had rejected these applications without providing a reasonable opportunity for the Assessee to be heard in person. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had upheld the orders of the Assessing Officer (AO) without a proper hearing or consideration of the Assessee's submissions, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 652675 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2024-2025
• Other Referred Cases: S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANAV BANSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY JAIN; VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 12AA; 12A; 80G

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 1124 & 1125/CHD/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2024-25 (u/s 12AA and 80G) Jyoti Foundation, 229, Lal Kurti Bazar, Ambala Haryana 133001 Vs. बनाम The CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh èथायी लेखा सं./PAN No: AAETJ0907F अपीलाथȸ/ APPELLANT Ĥ×यथȸ/ REPSONDENT ( Physical Hearing ) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ajay Jain, CA (Virtual) राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 04.06.2025 उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 16.06.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.: The captioned appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the separate orders dated 27.09.2024 and 30.09.2024 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions, Chandigarh [herein referred to as ‘CIT(E)’] . 1124 & 1125-Chd-2024 – Jyoti Foundations, Ambala 2 2. The only ground of appeal raised by the Assessee in ITA No. 1124/Chd/2024 is as under: The Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions has wrongly rejected registration under section 12AA without giving reasonable opportunity of being hard in person. Whereas, the ground raised by the Assessee in ITA No.1125/Chd/2024 is as under: The Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions has wrongly rejected the exemption under section 80G. 3. Brief facts of the case, as per the written submissions of the Ld.AR of the Assessee (in both the cases) is that the Assessee is a charitable trust for the welfare of public in large and had applied for registration u/s 12A and 80G of the Income tax Act respectively. During the proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the due date for submission of tax audit was 30th September and since he was awfully busy and held up in finalizing audits of the clients, thus, under such circumstances, he could not prepare the reply for the proceedings u/s 12A and 80G of the Act before the CIT(E) and in the absence of reply, 1124 & 1125-Chd-2024 – Jyoti Foundations, Ambala 3 his applications were rejected u/s 12AB and 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower authorities but could not controvert the fact that the order was passed by the ld. CIT(E) without hearing or considering the arguments of the Assessee. 6. We have heard the arguments of the Counsel of the Assessee and we have also gone through the written submission filed by him. We have also gone through the order of the CIT(E) and the arguments of the ld. DR before us. We find that the ld. CIT(E) has dismissed the appeals of the Assessee ex-parte by merely upholding the orders of the AO without considering the material available on record and also without going into the merit of the cases and, thus, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the Assessee. As such, an opportunity of hearing requires to be given to the Assessee to represent its cases before the ld. CIT(E). Even otherwise, it is trite [‘S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT’ 83 ITR 683 (Mad.)] and incumbent on the authority to decide an appeal on merit. The ld. D.R., though, has placed reliance on the 1124 & 1125-Chd-2024 – Jyoti Foundations, Ambala 4 orders of the authorities below, but has no objection if the matter is remanded to the CIT(E) for adjudication afresh. 5. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, the matter in both the cases is remitted to the file of the CIT(E), to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(E). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. 6. In the result, for statistical purposes, both the appeals are treated as allowed. Order pronounced on 16.06.2025 Sd/- Sd/- ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( KRINWANT SAHAY) Vice President Accountant Member “आर.क े.” आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "