CIT(E) Can’t Reject Trust’s Application Without Serving Hearing Notice as Per Provisions of Sec. 282 | ITAT
- Blog|News|Income Tax|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 21 June, 2024
Case Details: Idream Social Edtech Foundation vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) - [2024] 163 taxmann.com 539 (Chandigarh-Trib.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- A.D. Jain, Vice President & Vikram Singh Yadav, Accountant Member
- Amit Parsad & M. Kanda, Advs. for the Appellant.
- Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee trust had filed an application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). The Commissioner (Exemptions) issued a questionnaire electronically to verify genuineness of its activities requesting the assessee to furnish relevant documents and details online through e-proceedings on the e-filing portal along with supporting documents or evidences etc.
However, the assessee made no submissions. Thus, the Commissioner (Exemptions) rejected the application for registration under section 12AB on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish the relevant details along with supporting documents or evidence.
Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Chandigarh Tribunal.
ITAT Held
The Tribunal held that the notices were uploaded to the e-portal, but the assessee stated that he had not received any notice of hearing. Further, something needed to be on record to prove that the assessee had been served proper notice of hearing to furnish the relevant information or documents, etc. Merely uploading information about the date of hearing on the Income Tax Portal was not an effective service of notice as per the provisions of section 282.
Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the file was restored to the file of the Commissioner (Exemptions) to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to be heard by the assessee. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the Commissioner (Exemptions).
As a result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
List of Cases Reviewed
-
- Shri Bharat Goyal v. Commissioner of Income Tax (E), Chandigarh in CWP 21028-2023 (O&M), dated 04-03-2024 [para 8] followed.
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied