The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] for re-examination, citing an insufficient hearing notice period. Bai Ruxmani,appellant-assessee,a a charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Charitable Trust Act, 1950, as of 27.05.2021, appealed against the order passed by the CIT(E), on 18.09.2023 under section 12(A)(1)(ac) of the Act. This appeal centered on the rejection of approval under Section 12A, which is critical for the trust’s tax-exempt status. Boost Your Business with SME IPO Funding Strategies – Enroll Now The Tribunal noted that the appeal had been delayed by 90 days. The assessee filed a condonation request, explaining that the delay stemmed from the death of Shri Vijay Babnsilal Patwa, the Managing Trustee who had managed accounts and correspondence.

His passing, along with issues accessing his email, had delayed the assessee’s awareness of the impugned order. After reviewing the explanation, the Tribunal deemed the delay unintentional and beyond the assessee’s control and thus condoned it. The assessee argued that the CIT(E) had erred in rejecting its application without adequate notice, violating a Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) circular that mandates at least 15 days’ notice. According to the record, the CIT(E) had issued notices on 22.07.2023 and 22.08.2023, requesting submissions, followed by a final notice on 12.09.2023 for a hearing on 15.09.2023. The assessee contended that the two-day notice was insufficient, contrary to principles of natural justice.

Boost Your Business with SME IPO Funding Strategies – Enroll Now The two member bench comprising T.R Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Dr. BRR Kumar (Accountant Member) agreed with the assessee’s position, determining that the notice period had been inadequate. The Departmental Representative (DR) raised no objections to remanding the case. Consequently, the appellate tribunal directed the CIT(E) to re-evaluate the application and issue a fresh order within 50 days, ensuring that the assessee received a fair opportunity for a hearing. In conclusion, allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.