GST & TAXATION BAR, JALANDHAR V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 105/ASR/2023

AI Insights

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Amritsar heard two appeals filed by the GST & Taxation Bar and the Chartered Accountant Association against the CIT (Exemption), Chandigarh. The appeals challenged the rejection of their applications for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the applications were rejected without a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The CIT (Exemption) had rejected the applications citing non-receipt of any reasonable submissions from the Assessees, who argued that they did not receive the notices due to technical glitches and thus could not respond in time. The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the circumstances presented, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT (Exemption) for a fresh decision after providing a fair hearing to the Assessees.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 114530 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-06-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Bharat Aluminium Company Limited Vs. Union of India (2022) 134 Taxmann.com 187
• Laws Referred To: Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA BHAURAOJI NINAWE
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 105/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2023-24 GST & TAXATION BAR, C/o Parikshit Aggarwal, Chartered Accounant H.No. 3035, Sector 27D, Chandigarh Vs. CIT (Exemption), Chandigarh PAN: AADAG0859PO APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A. No. 106/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Chartered Accountant Association, C/o Parikshit Aggarwal, Chartered Accounant H.No. 3035, Sector 27D, Chandigarh Vs. CIT (Exemption), Chandigarh PAN: AADAC9242Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA Revenue by : Shri Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 12/06/2023 Date of Pronouncement : 15/06/2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: Both the above appeals are filed by the Assessee against the separate orders even dt. 16/01/2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(E), Chandgiarh challenging therein rejection of application for Registration under 12AB of the Act without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I.T.A. No. 105/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2023-24 I.T.A. No. 106/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2023-24 2 2. During the course of hearing it was noticed that both the above appeals of the assessee are barred by limitation by 26 days. It is explained by the assessee that the delay is occurred due to lack of knowledge of the assessee and the orders were not served physically. 2.1 Ld. AR stated that it was only at the time of routine visit of the Department portal, the assessee has observed some outstanding demand against its name for the subject assessment year. Immediately the assessee came into action and downloaded the copy of the order and prepared the appeal in short period of 26 days. Accordingly, he prayed for condonation of short delay of 26 days. 2.2 Considering the short period of 26 days of delay in filing the appeal, the delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee filed under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard and passed order in summary manner without adjudicating the issue on merits of the case. 3.1 The Counsel further submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) merely stated that the assessee was granted three opportunities but no reasonable submissions has been filed in response to the letter issued by his office. In absence of any submission from the assessee, it is not possible to ascertain object and the activity carried out by the assessee. Accordingly, the application filed by both the assessees for Registration under section 12AB of the Act were rejected by the Ld. CIT(E). 3.2 The Ld. AR contended that all the three notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) were issued on the IT Portal which were not received physically and could not be downloaded from the portal due to technical glitch, so as to enable to make the requisite compliance in time before the Ld. CIT(E). He further submitted that the assessees should be granted one more opportunity and it I.T.A. No. 105/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2023-24 I.T.A. No. 106/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2023-24 3 undertake to cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the Ld. CIT(E) in adjudication of the matter on merits of the case. He prayed that the matter may be remanded to the Ld. CIT(E), Chandigarh, accordingly. 4. Per contra, the Ld. DR stands by the impugned order and contended that the CIT(E) has granted three opportunities to the assessee. However, he has no objection in restoring the matter back to the file of the Ld. Cit(E) for fresh adjudication in view of the principle of natural justice. 5. We have heard the rival contention, material on record and impugned order. Admittedly, the Ld. CIT(E) has passed the order exparte qua the assesse thereby rejecting the application for Registration under section 12AB of the Act, in absence of submission from the assessees on the object and activity carried out by them. It is seen that the Ld. CIT(E) has not adjudicated the appeal on merit of the case that whether the activity of the assessee were carried out in consonance with the object of the assessee trust. It is noted that the assessee could not download the notices issued by the CIT(E) from the Department Portal and the same could not be delivered to them physically. In the absence of the availability of the copy of the notice issued by the office of the CIT(E) the assessee has genuine difficulty in furnishing the required information without having knowledge of what was the information called for. 6. The Hon’ble Delh High Court in the case of Bharat Aluminium Company Limited Vs. Union of India (2022) 134 Taxmann.com 187 has held that the assessee has a vested right to personal hearing and the same has to be given, if an assessee asked for it. The right to personal hearing cannot depend upon the facts of each case. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to adjudicate the application of both the appellant for grant of Registration under section 12AB of the Act afresh I.T.A. No. 105/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2023-24 I.T.A. No. 106/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2023-24 4 after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, the assessee is directed to update its email address on the Department portal and to cooperate in the fresh proceedings in adjudication of the matter for grant of Registration under section 12AB before the Ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, both the appeals of the assessees are restore back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E). 6. In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/06/2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member A.G Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order