INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT SOCIETY, RAIPUR (CG) V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , RAIPUR (CG)

ITA 107/BIL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 10724714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: T RAVINDRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT AND SHRI REJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR ITA NO.107/BLPR/2011 INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & VS. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX, MANAGEMENT SOCIETY, RAIPUR. MESONITE-2, SECTOR-1, NEAR VIDYA MANDIR, SHANKAR NAGAR, RAIPUR. (PAN: AAAJI 0152 K). (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T. RAVINDRA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.K. JAIN DATE OF HEARING : 24.12.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.12.2014 ORDER PER H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT, RAIPUR DATED 09.05.2008 PASSED UNDER SECTION 12AA/1 2A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WHEREBY THE LD. CIT HAS R EFUSED TO GRANT REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. 2. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF ABOUT 10 6 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPLIC ATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ON 2 ITA NO.107/BLPR /2011 28.07.2011. IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE APPLICATION, T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED AN AFFIDAVIT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD APPL IED FOR REGISTRATION ON 16.01.2008, BUT EVEN AFTER CONSIDERABLE LAPSE OF TIME, NO ORDER WAS RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT EITHER DISMISSING OR ACCEPTING THE APPL ICATION PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR REGISTRATION. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT, THEREAFT ER THE ASSESSEE SENT REMINDERS DATED 02.11.2009, 07.12.2009 & 01.12.2010 TO THE OFFICE O F THE COMMISSIONER, REQUESTING THEM TO CONVEY THE RESULT OF THE AFORESA ID APPLICATION. AFTER CONSIDERABLE LAPSE OF TIME, THE OFFICE OF THE COMMI SSIONER VIDE LETTER DATED 09.10.2010 INTIMATED THE ORDER REJECTING APPLICATIO N UNDER SECTION 12AA(1)(B) OF THE ACT, PASSED ON 09.05.2008. 3. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO 15.12.2010 WHEN FOR THE FIRST TIME THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH LETTER DATED 09.12.2010. AFTER RECEIVING ORDER ON 09.12.2010, THE ASSESSEE IMMEDIATELY FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. THUS, THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM NOT PREFERRI NG APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. 4. SHRI T. RAVINDRA, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE DELAY OF 106 DAYS OCCURRED IN THIS CASE IN FILING THE APPEAL MAY BE CONDONED. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE 3 ITA NO.107/BLPR /2011 WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM FILING THE A PPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT THE MATTER RELATING TO CONDONATION OF DELAY SHOULD BE EXERCISED LIBERALLY. REFUSING CONDONATION OF DELAY CAN RESULT IN MERITORIOUS MATTER BEING THROWN OUT A T THE VERY THRESHOLD AND CAUSE OF JUSTICE BEING DEFEATED. AS AGAINST THIS, WHEN THE DELAY IS CONDONED, THE HIGHEST THAT CAN HAPPEN IS A CAUSE WOULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS AF TER HEARING THE PARTIES. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESS EE SOCIETY SUBMITTED APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION ON 16.01.2008. THE MA IN OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AMONGST OTHERS AS PER THE TRUST DEED ARE TO OPEN OR PHANAGE, SENIOR CITIZEN HERMITAGE, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIETY DEPRESSED , HELPLESS PEOPLE AND TO EDUCATE THEM TO FACE ANY EVENTUALITY AND RUN THE ORGANIZATI ON/INSTITUTION FOR BETTERMENT OF POOR DEPENDENTS. LD. CIT HAS HELD THAT ALL THE OBJ ECTS THOUGH RELATE TO EDUCATION, CANNOT BE TERMED AS CHARITABLE. IT APPEARS THAT TH E LD. CIT HAS NOT GIVEN DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE BEFORE REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION. IT IS WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD. THE LD. C IT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION WITHOUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ACTIVITIES CA RRIED OUT BY THE INSTITUTION CANNOT BE TERMED AS CHARITABLE. WE MAY ALSO OBSERVE HERE THAT ON A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS CLEAR THAT NOWHERE IN THE ORD ER THE LD. CIT HAS STATED THAT ANY 4 ITA NO.107/BLPR /2011 NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED OR SERVED ON THE ASSES SEE. LD. CIT HAS ALSO NOT MENTIONED THAT ANY EXPLANATION WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO OBSERVE HERE THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NON-SPEAKING AND AP PEARS TO BE PASSED IN HASTE WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON. REASONS PROVIDE LIVE LINK BETWEEN THE CONCLUSION AND EVIDENCE. IT GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE HIGHE R AUTHORITY TO SEE WHETHER THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS PASSED ON REASONS AND WHETHER THE REASONS ARE BASED ON ADEQUATE LEGAL AND RELEVANT MATERIAL. GIVING REASONS IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ADMINISTERING JUSTICE. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT IN TOTO AND REMAND THE M ATTER TO HIM TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER AFFORDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, PREFERABLY WITHIN THRE E MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF COPY OF THIS ORDER. 7. FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.12.2014. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (H.L. KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDENT RAIPUR, DATED: 24.12.2014 PBN/* 5 ITA NO.107/BLPR /2011 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. D.R. ITAT, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, RAIPUR