Indian Educational Trust, Dharmapuri V. CIT, Salem

ITA 1178/CHNY/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51653 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 04-08-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MEGHANATH CHOWHAN J
• Assessee Lawyers: N QUADIR HOSEYN
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] I.T.A.NOS.1176 TO 1179/MDS/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : N.A INDIAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST GOPINATHAPURAM CROSS ROAD PARAYAMPATTY PUDUR HARUR DHARMAPURI DIST VS THE CIT SALEM [PAN - AAATI5061M ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.QUADIR HOSEYN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MEGHANATH CHOWHAN, JCIT/DR DATE OF HEARING : 04-08-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04-08-2011 O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ALL THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT, SALEM, BUT EITHER D ATED 23.11.2007 OR 29.5.2009, VIDE WHICH HE HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATI ON FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA AND DENIED APPROVAL U/S 80G(5), RESPECTI VELY. ALL THESE ITA 1176 TO 1179/09 :- 2 -: APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY, THEY ARE BEING DECIDED BY A COMMON ORD ER. 2. IT WAS NOTICED DURING DICTATION THAT APPEALS IN I .T.A.NOS. 1176/MDS/2009 AND 1179/MDS/2009 ARE TIME BARRED BY 366 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE-TRUST HAS NOT FILED ANY CONDONATION PETITI ON TO EXPLAIN THIS DELAY. A DEFECT MEMO WAS ALSO ISSUED IN THIS REGARD . BUT THE ASSESSEE-TRUST HAS NOT CARED TO RECTIFY THE SAME. SINCE THESE APPEALS ARE BARRED BY 366 DAYS AND NO CONDONATION PETITION HAS BEEN FILED, THESE APPEALS CANNOT BE ADMITTED. THEREFORE, THESE ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. THE ASSESSEE-TRUST CAN FILE PETITION FOR THE RESTORATION OF THESE APPEALS AFTER REMOVING THIS DEFECT IF IT IS SO ADVI SED. 3. AS REGARDS I.T.A.NOS. 1177 & 1178/MDS/2009, AT THE OUTSET, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, THEREFORE, THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RESTORED TO HIS FILE FOR RE-CONSIDERATI ON. 4. WE HAVE VISUALIZED THE RIVAL STANDS AND HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY TREADED THROUGH THE TRUST DEED AND OTHER RELEVANT D OCUMENTS ENCLOSED IN THE PAPER BOOK. WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR REMANDING BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT SO THAT HE CAN RE-EXAMINE THE ENTIRE ISSUE(S) IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE(S) AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM ITA 1176 TO 1179/09 :- 3 -: AS WELL AS THE ORAL SUBMISSIONS, IF ANY, WHICH CAN BE MADE. CONSEQUENTLY, WE RESTORE BOTH THESE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT FOR HIS FRESH DECISION. CONSEQUENTLY, BOTH THE APPE ALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. TO SUMMARIZE THE RESULT, APPEALS IN I.T.A.NOS.117 6 & 1179/MDS/2009 ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE WHEREAS APPEA LS I.T.A.NOS.1177 & 1178/MDS/2009 ARE ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.08.2011. SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( HARI OM MARATHA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 4 TH AUGUST, 2011 RD COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR