IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Sh. Laliet Kumar, JM ITA No. 4113/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : Uttarakhand Organic Commodity Vs CIT(Exemptions), Board, 201, Vasant Vihar, Phase-I, 5, Ashoka Marg, Dehradun Lucknow-226001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAATU1708P Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Sanjeet Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 10.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 11.07.2018 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: This is appeal by assessee against order dated 15.05.2015 of ld. CIT(Exemptions), Lucknow. 2. During course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of assessee neither any adjournment was sought. We, therefore, proceeded ex-parte and appeal is decided after hearing ld. CIT DR. 3. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: 1. Because on facts and in circumstances of case, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in rejecting application of Appellant. 2. Because on facts and in circumstances of case, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in not giving proper opportunity to Appellant to present its case. 2 ITA No. 4113/Del/2015 Uttarakhand Organic Commodity Board 3. Because on facts and in circumstances of case, grounds on basis of which ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) rejected application of Appellant, are factually not correct. 4. Because on facts and in circumstances of case, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in not understanding and properly appreciating objects and activities of Appellant. 5. Because on facts and in circumstances of case, order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) is bad in law as well as on facts in so far as reasons recorded by him are concerned. 6. Because on facts and in circumstances of case, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in not giving opportunity to Appellant to give explanation on reasons recorded by him. 7. That Appellant craves leave to add, delete or modify any ground of appeal as and when required. 4. main grievance of assessee vide Ground No. 2 relates to proper opportunity of being heard not provided by ld. CIT(E). 5. Facts of case in brief are that assessee moved application for granting approval u/s 80G of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act). case was fixed for hearing on 14.05.2015. ld. CIT(E) asked assessee to furnish trust deed, registration certificate, PAN & telephone numbers, bank statement, Income Tax Returns and ownership of land & building on 15.05.2015. Since, assessee could not produce those details and documents in short span of one day, ld. CIT(E) rejected application moved by assessee. 3 ITA No. 4113/Del/2015 Uttarakhand Organic Commodity Board 6. Now assessee is in appeal. ld. CIT DR strongly supported impugned order passed by ld. CIT(E) and submitted that assessee did not furnish requisite details, therefore, application moved by assessee was rightly rejected by ld. CIT(E). 7. We have considered submissions of both parties and perused material available on record. In present case, it is noticed that ld. CIT(E) asked assessee to furnish various details in short span of one day and rejected application on next day. In our opinion, sufficient time was not granted by ld. CIT(E) to assessee to furnish requisite details, in other words, due and proper opportunity of being heard was not provided to assessee. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to remand this matter back to file of ld. CIT(E) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. 8. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in Court on 11/07/2018) Sd/- Sd/- (Laliet Kumar) (N. K. Saini) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 11/07/2018 *Subodh* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Uttarakhand Organic Commodity Board v. CIT (Exemptions), Lucknow