MAHESHWARI SABHA TRICITY,PANCHKULA V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 249/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Maheshwari Sabha Tricity, the appellant, contesting an ex-parte order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh, which rejected their registration under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the rejection was based on a failure to respond to notices, which were sent to an outdated email address. The tribunal found that the assessee did not receive the notices due to this error and thus did not have the opportunity to be heard, leading to a decision to remand the case for fresh adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716712 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KUSUM BA NSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 249/CHD/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2025-26 Maheshwari Sabha Tricity Plot No 102, Industrial Area, Phase 2, Panchkula-134113. बनाम Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ((Exemptions), Chandigarh-160017. èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAJAM4028L अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri. Manoj Kumar, CA राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT.DR (Virtual Mode) सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 05-08-2025 उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, JM: Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 12-12-2024 of Ld. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh. 2. Grounds of appeal are as under: 1. That Ld. CIT( Exemption) is wrong in passing an ex-parte order rejecting the registration u/s Printed from counselvise.com 249-Chd-2025 Maheshwari Sabha Society, Panchkula 2 80G(5) by stating vide para 3.1, page 5 of the rejection order that the assessee has neither furnished any reply nor sought any adjournment which shows that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the matter, ignoring the fact that the assessee had not intentionally omitted the compliances of hearing notices, however, the assessee could not make the compliance of hearing notice, because notices were sent on the old e-mail i.e of the assessee ( i.e. [e-mail]), whereas the new e-mail id is [e-mail] as per latest ITR filed for AY 2024-25 as well as Profile of Income tax Portal. Since, notices were not served on the registered e-mail id. ([e-mail]), therefore the notices did not come to the knowledge of the assessee, leading to unintentional non- compliance. 3. At the very outset, ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has wrongly rejected the registration u/s 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by passing an ex-parte order, without providing any opportunity of being heard. It has further been submitted that assessee had not intentionally omitted the compliance of hearing notices, however, the assessee could not make the compliance, because notices Printed from counselvise.com 249-Chd-2025 Maheshwari Sabha Society, Panchkula 3 were sent on the old e-mail of the assessee i.e., [e-mail], whereas, the new e- mail id of Assessee is [e-mail], as per latest ITR filed for AY 2024-25 as well as Assessee’s Profile of Income tax Portal. Since, notices were not served on the registered existing new e-mail id., therefore the notices did not come to the knowledge of the assessee, leading to unintentional non-compliance. Further, it has been submitted that the Assessee has a fair case on merit. In view of the above, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. 6. Per Contra, the ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(E). 7. We have considered the facts brought on record by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee and we have also gone through the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(E). We find that although the Assessee did not get the notices in question on the new correct mail id, for which the order Printed from counselvise.com 249-Chd-2025 Maheshwari Sabha Society, Panchkula 4 was passed, still then, the Ld. CIT(E) has not passed the order on merit on the basis of material available on record. Therefore, we are of this considered view that in order to have natural justice for the Assessee and in the fitness of things the matter should be remanded back to CIT(E) for adjudication afresh. Accordingly, the case is remanded back to the CIT(E) for adjudication 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. The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 18.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- ( MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL ) ( LALIET KUMAR ) Accountant Member Judicial Member “आर.क े.” Printed from counselvise.com 249-Chd-2025 Maheshwari Sabha Society, Panchkula 5 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 "