Kalaikoodam, Erode V. CIT (Exemption), CHENNAI

ITA 1131/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4711 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAILENDRA MAMIDIPCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRINIRANJANI

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: CHENNAI , , ' BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1131/CHNY/2019 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2019-20 M/S.KALAIKOODAM, NO.279, AGARAHARAM ST., ERODE. VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF- INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), 121, M.G.ROAD, CHENNAI. [PAN: AADTK 4612 M ] ( ) /APPELLANT) ( *+) /RESPONDENT) ) , / APPELLANT BY : MS.S.SRINIRANJANI, ADV.. *+) , /RESPONDENT BY : MR. SAILENDRA MAMIDI, PCIT , /DATE OF HEARING : 05.08.2019 , /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.08.2019 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI, I N ORDER NO.ITBA/EXM/S/EXM1/2018-19/1015481232(1) DATED 28.0 3.2019 FOR THE AY 2019-20. 2. SHRI SAILENDRA MAMIDI, PCIT, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND MS.S.SRINIRANJANI, ADV., REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1131/CHNY/2019 :- 2 -: 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D MADE AN APPLICATION UNDER FORM-10A FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12A A OF THE ACT ON 06.09.2018. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE LD.CIT(E) HAD CALLED FOR CERTAIN EXPLANATIONS VIDE LETTERS DATED 08.11.2018 & 02.03. 2019. THE ASSESSEE HAD RESPONDED TO HIM VIDE LETTERS DATED 06.12.2018 & 14.03.2019. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(E) REJECTED T HE ASSESSEES APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12AA BY HOLDING TH AT THE ASSESSEES RESPONSE IN RESPECT OF THE LD.CIT(E) LETTERS WERE I NCOMPLETE AND CONSEQUENTLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DETAILS CALLED FOR, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO PROCESS THE APPLICATION FURTHER. IT WAS A SUBMI SSION THAT THE DETAILS CALLED FOR HAD BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(E), THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S.12AA. 4. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.DR THAT THE D ETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE LD.CIT(E) HAD NOT BEEN PRODUCED IN FULL. IT WA S A SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(E) WAS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. HE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(E). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. 6. A PERUSAL OF THE LETTERS ISSUED BY THE LD.CIT(E) A S ALSO THE REPLIES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE LD.CIT(E) HAVE BEEN ANSWERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(E) SAYS THAT THE DETAILS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE INCOM PLETE. THIS STATEMENT ITA NO.1131/CHNY/2019 :- 3 -: IS VERY BALD. THE LD.DR HAS ALSO NOT POINTED OUT A S TO WHICH IS THE QUERY AS RAISED BY THE LD.CIT(E), THAT HAS NOT BEEN ANSWE RED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS BEING SO, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(E) REFUSING TO GRANT THE ASSESSEE THE REGISTRATION U/S.12AA IS UNSUSTAINABLE AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE SAME IS QUASHED. IN THESE CIRCUM STANCES, THE LD.CIT(E) IS DIRECTED HEREWITH TO GRANT THE ASSESSE E THE REGISTRATION U/S.12AA AS CLAIMED. 7. IT MAY HOWEVER, BE KEPT IN MIND THAT THE DIRECTION S TO GRANT THE ASSESSEE THE REGISTRATION U/S.12AA WOULD NOT DISENT ITLE THE AO TO EXAMINE THE VIOLATIONS U/S.11(5), SEC.13(1)(D), ETC., IN TH E CASE OF THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 05 TH AUGUST, 2019 IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 3 /DATED: 05 TH AUGUST, 2019. TLN , *45 65 /COPY TO: 1. ) /APPELLANT 4. 7 /CIT 2. *+) /RESPONDENT 5. 5 * /DR 3. 7 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. /GF