KOOLKING FOUNDATION,MALERKOTLA V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 883/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Kookling Foundation, which appealed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh, rejecting their application for registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was the lack of a show cause notice and an adequate opportunity for the Assessee to be heard before the rejection of their application. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, found that the Assessee was not given a fair hearing as mandated by the law, leading to the decision to remand the case for a proper hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785928 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANAV BANSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ BHALLA; VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 80G

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 883/CHD/2025 U/s 80G Kookling Foundation, C/o Kookling Udhyog Private Limited, Village Ratolan, Focal Point, Dhuri Road, Malerkotla 148023 बनाम Vs. The CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh èथायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AAFTK7048D अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent ( HYBRID HEARING ) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CA (Virtual) राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 28.10.2025 उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM: Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 26.05.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Chandigarh. 2. Grounds of appeal are as under: 1. That the Ld. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh has grossly erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application filed by the Printed from counselvise.com 883-Chd-2025 Koolking Foundation, Malerkotla 2 appellant for registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without properly appreciating the facts and evidences on record. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh has grossly erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application filed by the appellant for registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without issuance of any show cause notice and without affording adequate and meaningful opportunity of being heard. 3. That the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) has erred in concluding that the activities of the trust are not genuine and not in accordance with the objects ignoring the fact that the trust is newly formed and had duly filed the required documents evidencing its charitable intent, including proof of land acquisition for future charitable use. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing 3. At the very outset, ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application filed by the appellant for registration u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') without issuance of any Printed from counselvise.com 883-Chd-2025 Koolking Foundation, Malerkotla 3 show cause notice and without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. 4. The ld. counsel also brought it to the notice of the Bench that as per provisions of the Income Tax Act, the Ld. CIT(E) is required to grant opportunity to the Assessee of being heard but that has not been done in this case. 5. Per contra, ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(E). 6. We have considered the findings given by the ld. CIT(E) in the order passed by her and we have also considered the submissions made by the AR of the Assessee during proceedings before us. We are of this considered view that as per the I.T. Act, the Assessee has every right to be heard before passing an order by the CIT(E), which in the present case, has not been done. Accordingly, we remand this case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to grant an opportunity of being heard to the Assessee as required under the law and then pass an Printed from counselvise.com 883-Chd-2025 Koolking Foundation, Malerkotla 4 order. Accordingly, Assessee, appeal is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 29.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- ( LALIET KUMAR ) ( KRINWANT SAHAY) Judicial Member 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 Printed from counselvise.com "