9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 142 - AT - Income TaxDenial of approval u/s. 80G - since the assessee did not reply to the queries raised by the Ld. CIT(E), there was no alternate except to reject the application moved by the assessee for approval u/s. 80G - HELD THAT - In the present case, it appears that a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided by the Ld. CIT(E) particularly when the case was fixed for furnishing the details on 16/04/2019 and the assessee sought time of 8-10 days vide email dated 15/04/2019. CIT(E) without commenting upon the request of the assessee, rejected the application moved by the assessee for approval u/s. 80G of the Act by passing the impugned order ex parte. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim audi alterm partem . We therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
1. Rejection of application for approval under Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(E), Chandigarh, dated 30/04/2019, primarily challenging the rejection of the application for approval under Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee had raised seven grounds of appeal, with the main grievance centering around the rejection of the said application. The Ld. CIT(E) had sought explanations and responses from the Assessee regarding the application, and upon not receiving satisfactory replies, rejected the application. The rejection was based on the Assessee's perceived lack of interest in pursuing the application and failure to provide responses to queries raised by the authority. The Assessee contended that the rejection of the application was done ex parte without providing adequate time to respond to the queries, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee argued that the rejection was unjust as the Assessee had requested additional time to reply to the queries, which was not considered by the Ld. CIT(E). On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR supported the impugned order, emphasizing the Assessee's failure to respond to the queries as the basis for rejection. Upon considering the submissions of both parties and reviewing the available material, the Appellate Tribunal noted that the Assessee was not given a fair opportunity to be heard before the rejection of the application. The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(E) had not adequately addressed the Assessee's request for additional time and had passed the order ex parte. Citing the principle of natural justice, "audi alteram partem," the Tribunal concluded that the Assessee should have been given a reasonable opportunity to respond before the application was rejected. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in compliance with the law, ensuring a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing for the Assessee. In the final decision, the appeal of the Assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, signifying a victory for the Assessee based on the procedural irregularity in the initial rejection of the application. The Tribunal's order was pronounced in open court on 26/04/2021.
|
