SHRI NAND SINGH MEMORIAL SOCIETY , DASUYA V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 117/ASR/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5014 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NOS. 61 & 117/ASR/2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: NA) NAND SINGH MEMORIAL SOCIETY TERKIANANA, DASUYA 144214, PUNJAB [PAN: AAATN 7450R] (ASSESSEE) VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) C.R. BUILDING SECTOR-17-E, CHANDIGARH 1600017 (REVENUE) ASSESSEE BY SH. P. N. ARORA, ADV REVENUE BY SH. RAHUL DHAWAN, CIT-D. R. DATE OF HEARING 22.09.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24.09.2021 ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, JM: 1. THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FEE LING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT EXEMPTION ON 19 JULY 20 19 IN RESPECT TO THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION FILED BY THE ASSES SEE UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD.AR HAD DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), AT PAGE TO PARAGRAPH 4 IT WAS MENTIO NED THAT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF H EARING OF THE MATTER AND ASSESS THE APPLICATION OF REGISTRATION O F THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THECITEXEMPTION,FORNONAPPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE . I.T.A NOS. 61 & 117/ASR/2020 2 3. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT TH E MATTER MAY KINDLY BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT EXEMPTION FOR D ECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH. 4. THE LD.DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS NOT OBJECTION IF T HE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT EXEMPTION, HOW EVER THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO APPEAR AND COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE CIT EXEMPTION IN THIS REGARD. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE JUD GMENTS CITED AT BAR DURING THE HEARING BY BOTH PARTIES. HOWEVER, AFTER HEARING OF THE MATTER AND IN PASSING THE ORDER, IT CAME TO NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBSEQUENTLY FILED ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR REGI STRATION BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER EXEMPTION ON OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE APPL ICATION DATED 28 TH NOVEMBER 2019AND THE SAME BE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL APPEAL NO 117/AMR/2020. THEREFORE THE APPEAL NO 61 / 2020 , BECAME INFRUCTUOUS AND NON MAINATAINABLE . 6. IN RESPECT TO APPEAL NO 117/2020 ,LDAR HAD SUBMI TTED THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FILED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SAY COMMISSIONER EXEMPTION IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITY ON 7 MARCH 2020 ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL. 7. THE AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT EXEMPTION, WHEREIN IT W AS MENTIONED THAT UNLESS THE ASSESSEE PAY THE LEGITIMATE TAXES A GAINST THE INCOME DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR FY 2017 18 AND FINANCIA L YEAR 2018 19 ARE NOT PAID THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION CANNO T BE CONSIDERED. I.T.A NOS. 61 & 117/ASR/2020 3 8. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT TH E FINDING RECORDED BY THE CIT EXEMPTION IS AGAINST THE RULES FRAMED BY THE BOARD IN THIS REGARD MORE PARTICULARLY MENTIONED IN FORM 10 A TO THAT EFFECT THAT HE HAD ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, WHERE IN IT WAS HELD BY THE HIGH COURT THAT THE NON-FILI NG OF THE RETURN OF INCOME, WOULD NOT BE A GROUND TO DENY THE REGISTRAT ION TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SHOWN OUR A TTENTION TO THE VARIOUSDOCUMENTS, INCLUDING THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CON SIDERATION. HOWEVER, NONE OF THE PAPERS WAS CONSIDERED BY THE C IT EXEMPTION WHILE REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR THE ASSESSEE FO R REGISTRATION. 9. PER CONTRA DR FOR THE REVENUE HAD VEHEMENTLY REL IED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITY. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE JUDGMENTS CITED AT BAR DURING HEARING BY BOTH THE PARTIES. TH E PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT EXEMPTION, CLEARLY SHOWS TH AT THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WITHOUT CONSIDERING DOCUMENTS SHOWN TO US IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY AR AND FURT HER THE CIT EXEMPTION HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE BINDING PRECEDENT OF VARIOUS HC AVAILABLE ON RECORD RECORD, WHEREIN HIGH COURT HAD HELD THAT THE FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME IS NOT NECESSARY FOR CON SIDERING THE APPLICATION WAS REGISTRATION. IT WAS HELD THAT ONL Y THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REQUIRED TO EXAMINE,AND FROM THE ACCO UNTS IT WAS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE WE RE GENUINE AND I.T.A NOS. 61 & 117/ASR/2020 4 CHARITABLE IN NATURE OR NOT SINCE THES COMMISSIONE R EXEMPTION HAS NOT DONE THE NEEDFUL. 11. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND REMAND THE MATTER TO CIT (E). THE CIT(E) IS DIRECTED TO PASS FRESH SPEAKING ORDER, IN TERMS OF DIRECTION GIVEN HEREINABOVE, AFTER FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE OF NATU RAL JUSTICE AND AFFORDING THE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSE E. 12. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL NO. 117/AMR/2020 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND APPEAL NO. 61/ AMR/2020 IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/09/2021. SD/- SD/- (DR. M.L. MEENA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER DATED 24/09/2021 *DOC* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER