Order of CIT(E) rejecting the application moved by the assessee for approval U/s 80G (of Income Tax Act, 1961) without providing a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee is violative of the principles of natural justice.

This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 30/04/2019 of Ld. CIT(E), Chandigarh. In this appeal, the assessee, although, has raised seven grounds of appeal, however, the main grievance of the assessee relates to rejection of application for approval U/s 80G(5)(vi) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) (hereinafter referred to as, the Act).

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee e-filed an application in Form No. 10G on 18/10/2018 for approval U/s 80G (of Income Tax Act, 1961) before the ld. CIT(E) who asked the explanation of the assessee on the queries which are mentioned in para 2 of the impugned order, for the cost of repetition, these are not reproduced herein. The ld. CIT(E) mentioned that the assessee furnished reply which was received through Dak in his office on 19/03/2019. Thereafter, he raised another queries mentioned in para 3 of the impugned order and fixed the date for furnishing the details by 16/04/2019. However, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee by observing in para 4 of the impugned order as under:

“4. On 15.04.2019, the applicant trust replied vide email and requested for adjournment of 8-10 days. Till the passing of the order the applicant trust did not submitted the reply to the above mentioned queries. In view of the absence of any reply in response to the above queries raised by this office, the queries raised in this matter remained unexplained. All of the above, including the unresponsive attitude of the applicant, clearly leads one to conclude that the entity does not seem interested to pursue its application. It is entirely possible that it has no answer to the queries raised. In the light of the above, I have no option but to deny the approval to the applicant u/s 80G (of Income Tax Act, 1961).”

3. Now the assessee is in appeal.

4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(E) without giving proper time to reply his queries, passed the impugned order ex parte and rejected the application moved by the assessee U/s 80G (of Income Tax Act, 1961), in violation of principles of natural justice.

5. In her rival submissions, the ld CIT-DR supported the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(E) and submitted that 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 b y the assessee for approval U/s 80G (of Income Tax Act, 1961).

6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. 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 16/04/2019and the assessee sought time of 8-10 days vide email dated 15/04/2019. The ld. CIT(E) without commenting upon the request of the assessee, rejected the application moved by the assessee for approval U/s 80G (of Income Tax Act, 1961) 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.

7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/04/2021)

Sd/- Sd/-

(R.L. NEGI) (N.K. SAINI)

Judicial Member / VICE PRESIDENT

*Ranjan

Date: 26/04/2021