Tribunal grants appeal delay, remands application, cites natural justice violation

The Tribunal granted condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to the appellant's unawareness of the order. The rejection of the application for approval under section 10(23C)(vi) was remanded for fresh consideration as the appellant was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal found a violation of natural justice principles, acknowledging the appellant's lack of opportunity to present necessary details. The case was restored to the Commissioner for re-examination to ensure the appellant's right to be heard and present evidence, emphasizing the importance of natural justice.

---

---

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2. Rejection of application for grant of approval u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice.

Condonation of Delay:
The appeal was filed with a delay of 34 days due to the appellant's unawareness of the order passed u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. The delay was condoned by the Tribunal, considering the factual aspects and the short period of delay. The Tribunal granted condonation to ensure natural justice and allow the appellant to present its case on merits against the ex parte order.

Rejection of Application for Approval:
The appellant contended that the rejection of the application by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) was erroneous. The appellant's previous counsel failed to file a reply due to the Covid-19 situation, leading to the rejection. The Tribunal acknowledged the hardships faced during the lockdown and Covid-19 but noted the lapse in filing the reply. However, the Tribunal found merit in the argument that the appellant was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard by the Commissioner. Therefore, the matter was remanded back for a fresh consideration, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that there was a lack of sufficient opportunity to present necessary details before the Commissioner. The Tribunal agreed that the appellant was prevented from furnishing required details due to inadequate opportunity. It was deemed fit to restore the matter to the Commissioner for re-examination, ensuring that the appellant is granted sufficient opportunity to be heard and present relevant evidence. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to verify the charitable nature of the appellant's activities and ensure cooperation from the appellant in the proceedings.

In conclusion, the appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes, and the case was restored to the Commissioner for a fresh examination with specific observations to uphold the principles of natural justice.

---