Judgment Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made the following substantive prayers : "(i) To issue a writ of certiorari to quash order dated July 30, 2002 (annexure P 5), and order dated February 20, 2003, (annexure P-13), passed by respondent No. 1 and also to quash notice dated March 3, 2003, (annexure P 14) issued by respondent No. 2. (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to issue renewal of exemption certificate under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act by allowing applications dated February 12, 2002 (annexure P 4) and dated July 30, 2002, (annexure P-5). (iii) A writ of prohibition may issued to the respondent not to proceed further on the basis of the notice dated March 3, 2003 (annexure P 14) which has been issued as a consequence of the passing of the order dated February 20, 2003 (annexure P-13)". 2. At the commencement of the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no grievance regarding issue of notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), and, therefore, he does not press his prayer regarding quashing of the same. Accordingly, the prayer regarding issue of writ of prohibition not to proceed further on the basis of the notice dated March 3, 2003, (annexure P 14) is rendered infructuous. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, argued that the respondents have not offered proper opportunity of hearing before passing the order dated February 20, 2003 (annexure P 13), and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. He submitted that on the application filed on behalf of the petitioner on August 22, 2002, for renewal of exemption under Section 80G of the Act, respondent No. 1 had called for a detailed report from respondent No. 2 through respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 2 had sent a notice to the representative of the petitioner on September 4, 2002, asking him to appear along with records on September 12, 2002, and the matter was listed before respondent No. 2 for hearing on November 21, 2002. According to learned counsel, respondent No. 2 sent a letter annexure P-8, on September 24, 2002, requiring the petitioner to furnish certain documents. According to learned counsel, respondent No. 2 sent a letter annexure P-8, on September 24, 2002, requiring the petitioner to furnish certain documents. According to counsel, the case was fixed for November 21, 2002, and even before the said date, respondent No. 2 had sent his adverse report to respondent No. 1 through respondent No. 3. It was then submitted that the hearing said to have been given by respondent No. 1 in the facts and circumstances of the case was no hearing and it was a mere formality and thus the principles of natural justice have been violated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has then taken us through paras. 8 and 9 of the writ petition and the reply thereto filed by respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Paras. 8 and 9 and the reply filed thereto read thus : Paras 8 and 9 of the writ petition : "8. That respondent No. 2 sent a letter dated September 4, 2002, (annexure P 7), to the petitioner requiring it to appear before him on September 12, 2002, along with all the relevant books of account in connection with the renewal of exemption of the trust under the Act. Respondent No. 2 asked for certain more queries from the trust vide his letter dated September 24, 2002 (annexure P 8), requiring the petitioner to attend his office on October 1, 2002, along with the relevant records. 9. That thereafter respondent No. 2, slated the matter for November 21, 2002, requiring the petitioner to attend his office along with all the documents in response to the queries put to him. The petitioner prepared his reply for being submitted on the date fixed, i.e., November 21, 2002. The petitioner was wonder-struck to know that respondent No. 2 sent his report against the petitioner to respondent No. 1 through respondent No. 3 who did not forward the same to respondent No. 1 but by taking a serious note returned the same to him because it was sent by him prior to November 21, 2002, the date fixed in the matter before respondent No. 2. Again respondent No. 2 sent the same to respondents Nos. 1 and 3 and he did so without affording any opportunity of hearing to it and more particularly when the report submitted by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 was detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. Again respondent No. 2 sent the same to respondents Nos. 1 and 3 and he did so without affording any opportunity of hearing to it and more particularly when the report submitted by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 was detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. Thus by way of complaint and apprising of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner submitted the application dated November 25, 2002, to respondent No. 1 and also submitted the documents and material to respondent No. 1 instead of respondent No. 2 straightaway as there was no utility to furnish these documents to respondent No. 2 since he was ceased of the matter of submitting his report to respondent No. 1 prior to the date of hearing before him. A true copy of the letter/complaint/reply dated November 21, 2002, is appended as annexure P 9. The reply dated November 21, 2002, which was prepared for submitting the same to respondent No. 2, was also appended as enclosure to annexure P-9 while submitting the same to respondent No. 1. A true copy of the same is appended as annexure P 10. Reply on behalf of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to paras. 8 and 9: That in reply to paras. 8 and 9 of the civil writ petition it is being submitted that the facts of these paras, are not admitted as correct and are denied. It is wrong on the part of the petitioner to say that respondent No. 2 slated the matter for November 21, 2002. The correct and real fact is that respondent No. 2 slated the matter for September 12, 2002, when the petitioners counsel, Shri Shiv Raj Batra and accountant Sh. Sanwar Mal, appeared before respondent No. 2 and they were required to furnish, the following information on September 13, 2002 : (i) photocopy of corpus of funds at L. F. No. 1. (ii) photocopy of account of Mahendra Fastners at L. F. No. 7. (iii) photocopy of account No. Murti Account valued at Rs. 2,02,501. (iv) photocopy of account of Kanha Sales--Rs. 1,00,000. (v) to produce bills of purchase and vouchers. But the petitioner did not make any compliance on September 13, 2002, nor any application for adjournment received. There was total non-compliance by the petitioner on September 13, 2002. (iii) photocopy of account No. Murti Account valued at Rs. 2,02,501. (iv) photocopy of account of Kanha Sales--Rs. 1,00,000. (v) to produce bills of purchase and vouchers. But the petitioner did not make any compliance on September 13, 2002, nor any application for adjournment received. There was total non-compliance by the petitioner on September 13, 2002. Therefore, respondent No. 2 issued a further detailed notice dated September 24, 2002 (P 8) and slated the matter for October 1, 2002. Again there was non-compliance by the petitioner on October 1, 2002, and the petitioner came forward with an adjournment application on October 4, 2002, on the ground the required information is under preparation. It is therefore, requested that three weeks time may kindly be granted.. Respondent No. 2 agreed to the assessees request and adjourned the matter to October 23, 2002. But again on October 23, 2002, counsel for the petitioner prayed that the informations are not ready. Wants more time. Accordingly, the case was again adjourned to November 7, 2002. Again the petitioner did not make compliance on November 7, 2002 and came forward with yet one more adjournment application on the ground that the accountant is ill and again requested for two weeks time. Therefore, respondent No. 2 slated the matter for November 21, 2002, after several adjournments and did not jump to November 21, 2002, as alleged by the petitioner. Looking to the carefree and non-serious attitude of the assessee in delaying the things and in not making compliance to the statutory requirements, respondent No. 2 was convinced that the petitioner is not going to answer his queries and to furnish the required information. So respondent No. 2 sent the report dated November 13, 2002, to respondent No. 1 which was forwarded by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak, respondent No. 3, to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak, with the remarks as under: Keeping in view the report of the Assessing Officer, which is self-speaking it is not a fit case for renewal of exemption under Section 80G. Thus, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that the matter was slated for November 21, 2002, and he has withheld the fact of granting of several opportunities and giving him time of two months. Thus, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that the matter was slated for November 21, 2002, and he has withheld the fact of granting of several opportunities and giving him time of two months. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak, who is the statutory authority to pass the order vide his letter No. 4990 dated November 11, 2002, directed respondent No. 2 to send the report immediately on the assessees request for renewal of exemption under 80G. Therefore, respondent No. 2 was duty bound and sent his comments and report on November 13, 2002, saying that the trust does not qualify for exemption under Section 80G in view of the various shortcomings and irregularities found during examination of the books of account for the trust. Respondent No. 2 cannot wait indefinitely till the assessee submits the required informations, when respondent No. 1 calls for a report. As many as five opportunities on September 13, 2002, October 4, 2002, October 23, 2002, November 7, 2002 and November 21, 2002, were afforded but the assessee did not furnish the required informations." 5 Learned counsel for the respondents has produced the files of the case. A perusal of the same shows that respondent No. 2 on being asked by respondent No. 1 to furnish his comments on the application filed by the petitioner for grant of exemption under Section 80G of the Act had called upon the petitioner to produce the material before him to substantiate his claim for grant of exemption under Section 80G of the Act. The proceedings before respondent No. 2 thus assume significance and the report submitted by him on November 13, 2002, i.e., even before the date fixed, viz., November 21, 2002, shall render the proceedings violative of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, we hold that no proper opportunity of hearing had been provided to the petitioner and hearing provided by respondent No. 1 would amount to only a post-decisional hearing in the facts and circumstances of the case and the same would thus, be in violation of the basic principles of natural justice. 6. In view of the above, we quash the order dated February 20, 2003 (annexure P 13), passed by respondent No. 1 and remit the matter to respondent No. 1 to pass fresh order in accordance with law after affording a proper and effective opportunity to the petitioner. 6. In view of the above, we quash the order dated February 20, 2003 (annexure P 13), passed by respondent No. 1 and remit the matter to respondent No. 1 to pass fresh order in accordance with law after affording a proper and effective opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner through its counsel is directed to appear before respondent No. 1 on November 8, 2004. The writ petition stands disposed of as indicated above. No costs.