M/s. Edha Education Foundation, Chandigarh V. CIT(E), Chandigarh

ITA 1/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3520 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AN D SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.01/DEL./2016, A.Y. EDHA EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION VS. CIT(E) C/O. SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, ADV. C.R.BUILDING, 4 TH FLOOR, #527, SECTOR-10-D SECTOR-17-E CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH (PAN : AAATE6139N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI AMIT KATOCH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 23.01.2019 DATE OF ORDER : 26.02.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPELLANT EDHA EDUCATION FOUNDATION, CHANDIGARH (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ASSESSEE') BY FILI NG THE AFORESAID APPEAL, SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19/08 /2015 PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E), NEW DELHI QUA THE A SSESSMENT YEAR ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT : 1. THAT THE ID .COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERR ED IN LAW IN DECIDING THE APPEAL WITHOUT AFFORDING A PROP ER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WHICH IS AGAINST THE BASIC T ENETS OF PRINCIPALS OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND AS SUCH THE ORDER PASSED IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. ITA NO. 01/DEL./2016 2 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN REJECTING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT IN A SUM MARY MANNER WHICH IS ARBITRARY & UNJUSTIFIED. 3. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS OBSE RVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED AS THE MATTER WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ONLY ONCE AND NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED IN AS MUCH AS TH E ASSESSEE WAS BASED OUT OF GURGAON AND WAS NOT CARRY ING THE BOOKS AT THE TIME OF FIRST HEARING AND AS SUCH THE ORDER IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 4. THAT THE REGISTRATION HAS BEEN REFUSED ONLY ON T HE BASIS OF SUSPICION, CONJECTURES AND SURMISES WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE LAW AND AS SUCH THE ORDER REFUS ING REGISTRATION IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 5. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF T HE CASE AND IS, THUS, UNTENABLE. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THAT FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICA TION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS FIL ED AN APPLICATION FOR FORM NO. 10A FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT WHICH HAS BEEN SUMMARILY DISMISSED BY CIT(E) ON THE GROUND TH AT THE APPLICANT SOCIETY HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ITS BOOK OF ACCOUNTS AND VOUCHERS SO AS TO EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY. 3. FEELING AGGRIEVED THE APPLICANT SOCIETY HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. ITA NO. 01/DEL./2016 3 4. APPLICANT SOCIETY HAS FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE TH E BENCH DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, CONSEQUENTLY THE BENCH PROCEEDE D TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL ON MERIT WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD. SR. DR AS WELL AS ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS ON RECORD. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWER REVENUE AUTHORITY. 6. UNDISPUTEDLY ON THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED BY LD. CIT(A) DATED 19.05.2015 AMIT PUROHIT, FOUNDER TRUSTEES OF THE AP PLICANT TRUST ATTENDED THE OFFICE AND FILED DETAILS. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER CIT(E) RECORDED THE FACT THAT THE AP PLICANT HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE BOOK OF ACCOUNTS AND VOUCHERS SO AS TO ASCE RTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF ITS AIMS AND OBJECTS. 7. BUT WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT WHEN APPL ICANT HAS FILED DETAILS AND THEREAFTER NO DATE WAS FIXED BY LD. CIT (E) TO PRODUCE THE BOOK OF ACCOUNTS, IF SO REQUIRED AND THE ASSESSED HAD A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT THE COMPLETE DETAILS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON REC ORD, IT IS A CASE WHERE NO ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD HAS BEEN GRA NTED TO THE APPLICANT. SO IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CASE IS REQUIRED TO BE REMANDED BACK TO CIT(E) TO DECIDE A FRESH AFTER PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPLICATION TR UST. CONSEQUENTLY PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE APPLICANT IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 26 TH FEBRUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (B.R.R.KUMAR) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 26 /02/ 2019 *BR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT ITA NO. 01/DEL./2016 4 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-XXVI, NEW DELHI. 5. CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION 18.02.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 18.02.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 26.02.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 26. 02.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER