Hariom Medical & Rural foundation, Ahmednagar V. CIT, Pune

ITA 1227/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 59970 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 16-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K SINGH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBE R AND SHRI D KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO 1227/PN/10 HARIOM MEDICAL & RURAL FOUNDATION, .. APPELLANT C/O DR RAJENDRA KASHINATH DUKARE, PRESIDENT, HARIOM MEDICAL RURAL FOUNDATION, A/P: AKOLA, TAL.PATHARDI, AHMEDNAGAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-I, .. RESPONDENT PUNE APPELLANT BY : SHRI M K KULKARNI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S K SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 03.01.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.01.2012 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD CIT HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT TRUST IS CONDUCTING THE WORK ON OBJECT OF THE TRUST BUT JUST SCRUTI NIZED THE DOCUMENTS, AND MADE CONCLUSION, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT AND SATISFIED. 2. THE LD CIT HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE CONCESSION T O BE GRANTED TO THE TRUST THAT ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF SPECIFIC PHOTOS ARE MISSI NG AND WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS, THIS IS CO-INCIDENCE THAT FIGURES ARE COMES ROUNDED OFF IN FINAL FIGURE OF THE SPECIFIC A CCOUNTS. 3. THE LD CIT HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE PROPOSAL FOR CONCESSION OF 80G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT JUST BECAUSE OF NOT PRODUCED THE INFORMATION ON SEPARATE SHEET ABOUT THE PRESENT ACTIVI TIES OF THE TRUST CONTRARY IT CAN BE AVAILS AFTER VERIFICATION OF I NCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET. 2. BEFORE US, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE -TRUST IS CONDUCTING THE WORK ON OBJECT OF THE TRUST. IT WAS SUBMITT ED BY THE LEARNED A.R THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX REJECTED THE CONCESSIO N TO BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 80G(5) ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF TECHNICAL ISSUES, WHICH COULD NOT BE PROPERLY ADDRESSED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IN ABSENCE OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS, THE POSITION COULD NOT BE CLARIFIED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO CLARIFY THE POSITION WITH REGARD TO GRANT OF CONCESSION UNDER SECTION 80G(5) TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED D.R ON THIS ASPECT . 3. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT DUE OPPOR TUNITY OF HEARING SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, I.E. ACCOR DING TO WHICH ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO FURNISH THE DETAILS TO STRENGTH EN ITS CLAIM FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G(5). THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND R ESTORE THE ISSUE TO HIS FILE WITH DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AS PER FACT AND LAW, AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE I S ALSO DIRECTED TO CO- OPERATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX. 4. SINCE WE ARE RESTORING THE ISSUE TO THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME-TAX, IN 0.THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE REFRAIN TO COMMENT ON THE I SSUE AT HAND. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (D KARUNAKARA RAO) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE DATED:6 TH JANUARY, 2012 B COPY TO:- 1) ASSESSEE 2) ITO WD 3 AHMEDNAGAR 3) THE CIT-I PUNE 4) DR, B BENCH, I.T.A.T.,PUNE. 5) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER SR. PS, ITAT PUNE