Arunachal Seva Nyas, Sindhudurg V. Commissioner of Income-tax - II,

ITA 1261/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 126124514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK CH ANDRAKANT SARANG
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Cancellation of registration
• Section: 80G; 12A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.655/PN/2012 ARUNACHAL SEVA NYAS DATTA NAGAR, KUDAL, DIST. SINDHUDURG. PAN: AACTA0882G APPELLANT VS. CIT-II, KOLHAPUR RESPONDENT ITA NOS.1261 & 1262/PN/2014 ARUNACHAL SEVA NYAS DATTA NAGAR, KUDAL, DIST. SINDHUDURG. PAN: AACTA0882G APPELLANT VS. CIT-II, KOLHAPUR RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHOK CH ANDRAKANT SARANG DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. M.S. V ERMA, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 12.06.2014 DATE OF ORDER : 20.06.2014 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: ALL THESE APPEALS PERTAIN TO THE SAME ASSESSEE ON SIMILAR ISSUES, SO FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THEY ARE BE ING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2 2. IN ITA NO.655/PN/2012, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED V ARIOUS GROUNDS. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THIS APPEAL HAS BE EN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER U/S.12AA(3) AND U/S.11AA(5) OF THE I.T. A CT, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. AGREEING TO THE OBJECTIONS OF LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE FILED SEPARATE APPEALS. SO THIS APPEAL IS BEING DISMISSED AS INFR UCTUOUS AS TWO SEPARATE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN ITA NO.1261/PN/2014, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED T HE APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. AS PER ABOVE REFERRED ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX II KOP. ON THE BASIS OF JUDGMENT OF PATNA HIGH COURT I N CASE OF BIHAR INSTITUTE OF MINING AND MINE SURVEYING VS. CI T (208 ITR 608) HAVE QUESTIONED ABOUT OUR CHARITABLE OBJECTS A ND ASKED US TO SUBMIT OUR SAY IN THIS REGARD BY 10 TH FEBRUARY 2012 BY LETTER NO. KOP/CIT-II/TECH. II/12AA/2011-12/2152 DT . 27.01.2012 AND FOR REJECTION OF APPLICATION OF 80G BY LETTER NO. KOP/CIT-II/TECH. II/80G/2011-12/2161 DT. 27.01.2012 (RECEIVED ON 03/02/2012) WE OBJECT FOR THE DECISION OF COMMISSIONER INCOME T AX II KOLHAPUR AND WE HAVE SENT OUR SAY BY REGISTER POST DT. 24.02.2012 WHICH WAS LATE AS PER HIS GIVEN DATE BUT BEFORE THAT HE PASSED THE ORDER THE DELAY WAS DUE TO FOLLOWING REASON - 1) TIME GAP GIVEN FOR OUR SAY FROM DATE 03.02.20 12 (DATE OF RECEIPT OF LETTER) TO 10.02.2012 IT WAS A SHO RT NOTICE TO US BEING A TRUST TO CALL A MEETING AND HAVE DISC USSION WITH OUR CONSULTANT. 2) AFTER DISCUSSION WITH OUR TRUSTEE MEMBER WE HAVE DECIDED TO DRAFT LETTER REGARDING OUR SAY AND WE SE NT IT ON DATE 24.02.2012 (POSTED ON DT. 27.02.2012) TO COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX II KOLHAPUR. CARRYING OF NURSERY ACTIVITY IS ONE OF THE OBJECT O F OUR TRUST AND SO OUR TRUST IS CARRYING THE NURSERY ACTI VITY SINCE LAST THREE YEARS. AS PER SECTION 2(15) OF INCOME TAX ACT THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE IS 'RELIEF TO THE POOR, EDUCA TION, MEDICAL RELIEF, PRESERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT (INCLUDING WATE RSHEDS, FORESTS AND WILDLIFE) AND PRESERVATION OF MONUMENT OR PLACE OR 3 OBJECTS OF ARTISTIC OR HISTORIC INTEREST AND THE AD VANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY'. FROM THE ABOVE DEFINITION IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THA T THERE ARE FIVE LIMBS WHICH COMES UNDER THE CHARITABLE OBJ ECT- 1) RELIEF TO THE POOR, 2) EDUCATION, 3) MEDICAL RELIEF, 4) PRESERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT, 5) ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY NOW WE ARE CONCERN ABOUT THE EDUCATIONAL OBJECTS. I T INCLUDE ADVANCEMENT AND PROPAGATION OF EDUCATIONAL AND LEARNING IN ALL ITS BRANCHES, FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT , MAINTENANCE, ADMISSION AND SUPPORT OF COLLEGES, SCH OOLS OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, PROFESSORSHIP, SCHO LARSHIP, PRIZES AND FELLOWSHIP, SPECIALLY IN MEDICAL SCIENCE AND / OR IN ANY OTHER BRANCH OF SCIENCE, COMMERCE, ARTS, ETC. O R IN ASSISTING STUDENTS TO STUDY ABROAD, EITHER BY WAY O F LUMP-SUM OR BY PAYMENT OF PERIODICAL SUMS. THE NURSERY RUN BY OUR TRUST IS NOT A PROFIT MAKING . WE HAVE STARTED THIS NURSERY IN VILLAGE AREA TO PROVID E A ENGLISH MEDIUM NURSERY IN A VILLAGE AREA AT NO PROFIT NO LO SS BASIS. WE ARE CHARGING ONLY RS. 200/- PER MONTH AND THERE ARE ONLY 28 CHILDREN IN ALL THREE CLASSES. PER MONTH OUR RECEIP TS IS RS. 5600/- AND OUT OF THAT WE ARE PAYING TO THREE TEACH ERS AND ONE HELPER. TOTAL MONTHLY EXPENDITURE IS RS. 5400/-, SO SURPLUS IS RS. 2007- PER MONTH AND OUT OF THIS SURPLUS WE ARE PURCHASING STATIONERY MATERIAL LIKE PAPER, CHOCKS, ETC. THIS I S THE NURSERY WHICH PROVIDE THE CHILDREN THE KNOWLEDGE OF HOW TO LEARN, HOW TO MIX UP WITH EACH OTHER, HOW TO BEHAVE IN SCHOOL, HOW TO SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE WITH EACH OTHER, HOW TO PLAY, H OW TO UNDERSTAND WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT TO CHILDREN IN T HE PRESENT COMPETITIVE ERA. IT MEANS IT IS THE PRE TRAINING TO CHILDREN BEFORE ENTERING INTO SCHOOL. OUR TOTAL OBJECT IS TO GIVING THE PRE EDUCATION WHICH ARE GIVING IN A SCHOOL STARTING FRO M FIRST STANDARD. AT PRESENT OUR OBJECT IS NOT TO EARN ANY PROFIT BUT TO MOTIVATING THE CHILDREN TOWARDS THE EDUCATION. FOR THIS WE ARE NOT DOING ANY ADVERTISEMENT NOR PURSUING THE PEOPLE . THIS NURSERY IS RUN IN RENT FREE PLACE WHICH IS OFFER BY ONE OF THE TRUSTEE. ALSO EDUCATIONAL CHART IS OFFERED BY SOME OF OUR TRUSTEES. MAIN AND MAIN OBJECT OF OUR TRUST BEHIND CARRYING THIS NURSERY TO MAKE AVAIL THE FACILITIES OF NURSER Y WHICH ARE SO FAR NOT IN NEAR BY VILLAGE. 4 FOR OUR OPINION PLEASE REFER THE CASE OF DELHI MUSI C SOCIETY V. DGIT, 17. IN THIS CASE THE PRESCRIBED AU THORITY REJECTED THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION ON GROUND THAT IT DEED NOT SATISFY CRITERIA OF BEING AN 'EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTI ON'. AS PER PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY THE PETITIONER WAS NOT AWARDIN G ANY DEGREE OR CERTIFICATE AND WAS MERELY IMPARTING COACHING TR AINING IN INDIA AS PER NORMS OF FOREIGN COLLEGES; THAT IT WAS NOT AN INSTITUTION RECOGNIZED BY THE UGC OR BY ANY BOARD C ONSTITUTED BY GOVERNMENT FOR IMPARTING FORMAL EDUCATION IN THE FIELD OF WESTERN MUSIC. THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY OBSERVED TH AT THE PETITIONER COULD NOT BE DISTINGUISHED FROM ANY COAC HING OR TRAINING INSTITUTE PREPARING THE STUDENTS FOR APPEA RING IN ANY EXAMINATION FOR OBTAINING A FORMAL DEGREE BY A FORM ALLY RECOGNIZED INSTITUTION. THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, T HEREFORE HELD THAT THE PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO BE CHARACTE RIZED AS AN 'EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC TION 10(23 C) (IV). THE DELHI HIGH COURT ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY AND HELD AS UNDER: (I) THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRUSTEE , LOKA SIKSHANA TRUST V. CIT, (1975) 101 ITR 234 INTERPRET ED THE WORD EDUCATION IN SECTION 2(15) AND HELD TRAINING GIVEN TO THE YOUNG IN PREPARATION FOR THE WORK OF LIFE AND I T ALSO CONNOTES THAT THE WORD HAS BEEN USED TO DONATE SYSTEMATIC INSTRUCTION, SCHOOLING OR THE WHOLE COUR SE OF SCHOLASTIC INSTITUTION WHICH A PERSON HAS RECEIVED. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE WORD ALSO CONNOTES T HE PROCESS OF TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT OF KNOWLEDGE, S KILL MIND AND CHARACTER OF STUDENTS BY NORMAL SCHOOLING. (II) IT IS SEEN THAT THE PETITIONER IS BEING RUN LI KE ANY SCHOOL OR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IN A SYSTEMATIC M ANNER WITH REGULAR CLASSES, VACATIONS, ATTENDANCE REQUIRE MENTS, ENFORCEMENT OF DISCIPLINE AND SO ON. THESE PROVISIO NS IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS SATISFY THE CONDITION LAI D DOWN IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN SOLE TRUSTE E, LOKA SHISHANA TRUST (SUPRA). IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED T HAT HAVING REGARD TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PETITIONER RUN THE MUSIC SCHOOL,, THAT THERE IS IMPARTING OF SYSTE MATIC INSTITUTION, SCHOOLING OR TRAINING GIVEN TO THE STU DENTS SO THAT THEY ATTAIN PROFICIENCY IN THE FIELD OF THEIR CHOICE - VOCAL OR INSTRUMENTAL IN WESTERN CLASSICAL MUSIC. (III) THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN CIT V BOON FOUNDAT ION, (1985) 154 ITR 208/22 TAXMAN 9 HAS OBSERVED THAT SECTION 10(22) DOES NOT IMPOSE A CONDITION THAT AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTIO N THEREUNDER SHOULD BE AFFILIATED TO ANY UNIVERSITY O R ANY 5 BOARD. AS PER HIGH COURT, SO LONG AS THE INCOME IS DERIVED FROM AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PROFIT , SUCH INCOME IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 10 (22). THIS JUDGMENT TAKES CARE OF THE OBJECTION OF THE PRESCRI BED AUTHORITY THAT THE PETITIONER IS NOT AFFILIATED TO, OR RECOGNIZED BY ANY UNIVERSITY OR BOARD IN INDIA AND THAT IT MERELY AWARDS CERTIFICATES OR GRADES WHICH ARE ISSU ED BY THE TRINITY COLLEGE AND ROYAL SCHOOL OF MUSIC, LOND ON. SINCE SECTION 10(23C) (VI) ALSO USES THE SAME LANGU AGE AS SECTION 10(22), THE SAME PRINCIPLE SHOULD GOVERN TH E INTERPRETATION OF THAT PROVISION ALSO. (IV) THE SUPREME COURT IN S. AZEEZ BASHA V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1968 SC 662 HAS CONSIDERED THE NATURE OF AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. IT WAS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT THERE IS A GOOD DEAL IN COMMON BETWEEN EDUCATI ONAL INSTITUTIONS WHICH ARE NOT UNIVERSITIES AND THOSE W HICH ARE UNIVERSITIES IN THE SENSE THAT BOTH TEACH STUDE NTS AND BOTH HAVE TEACHERS FOR THE PURPOSE. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT WHAT DISTINGUISH ES A UNIVERSITY FROM ANY OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION I S THAT A UNIVERSITY GRANTS DEGREES OF ITS OWN, WHEREAS OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS CANNOT. THESE OBSERVATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT SUPPORT THE STAND OF THE PETITIONER T HAT THE FACT THAT IT DOES NOT CONDUCT ITS OWN EXAMINATI ON OR AWARDS DEGREES OF ITS OWN IS NOT DECISIVE OF THE QU ESTIONS WHETHER IT IS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR NOT. IT ALSO LENDS SUPPORT TO THE PETITIONER'S STAND BEFORE THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY THAT IT IS NOT A MERE COACHING CENTRE PREPARING STUDENTS FOR COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS, (V) FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, IT IS HELD THAT TH E PETITIONER MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIO N WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 10(23) (C )(IV). ALSO REFER ANOTHER CASE OF BABA AMARNATH EDUCATION SOCIETY V. CIT AND ACE EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE SOC IETY V. CIT IT AT 'B' BENCH, CHANDIGARH. DECIDED ON 29.12.2011. FACTS: IN THE PRESENT TWO APPEALS, SINCE THE FACTS OF THE CASES AS WELL AS THE GROUNDS OF WERE IDENTICAL, THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. THE ASSESSEE-TRUSTS WERE ESTABLISHED PRIMARILY TO PROMO TE EDUCATION. THE ASSESSEES' APPLICATION FOR REGISTRAT ION U/S 12A WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT ON THE GROUND THAT THEI R ONE OF THE OBJECT CLAUSES PROVIDED FOR PROMOTION OF EXP ORT OF 6 COMPUTERS HARDWARE/SOFTWARE, TELECOMMUNICATION, INTERNET, E-COMMERCE AND ALLIED SERVICES. FOR THE P URPOSE THE CIT RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASES OF YOGI RAJ CHARITIES TRUST V. CIT, (103 ITR 777) AND OF EAST INDIA INDUSTRIES (MADRAS) PVT. LTD. (65 ITR 611). HELD: FROM THE DETAILED LIST OF ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE TWO ASSESSEES, THE TRIBUNAL NOTED THAT THEY HAVE CARRIE D OUT ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO ACHIEVING THEIR CHARITABLE OBJECTS VIZ,, IMPARTING EDUCATION. THE OBJECT CLAUSE, WHICH WAS OBJECTED TO BY THE CIT AND THE GROUND ON WHICH THE REGISTRATION WAS REJECTED WAS NEVER ACTED UPON AND IT REMAINED ON PAPER. ACCORDING TO IT, SINGLE INOPERAT IVE OBJECT CANNOT ECLIPSE THE WHOLE RANGE OF OTHER CHAR ITABLE OBJECTS AND ACTUAL CONDUCT OF CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES . ACCORDING TO IT, IT WAS NOT THE LETTER OR LANGUAGE OF ONE SINGLE OBJECT CLAUSE WHICH IS CONCLUSIVE, BUT IT WA S THE ACTIVITY OF THE APPELLANTS, WHICH WAS MORE RELEVANT . FURTHER, IT OBSERVED THAT THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECT ION 2 (15) WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FIRST THREE OBJECTS ENUME RATED IN THE DEFINITION. THE SAID PROVISO ONLY RESTRICTS THE SCOPE OF THE EXPRESSION 'ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY'. THE PROPOSITION WAS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE BOARD CIRCULAR NO. 11/2008, DATED 19.12.2008 WHICH INTER ALIA STATES WHERE THE PURPOSE OF A TRUST OR I NSTITUTION IS RELIEF OF THE POOR, EDUCATION OR MEDICAL RELIEF, IT WILL CONSTITUTE CHARITABLE PURPOSE, EVEN IF IT INCIDENTA LLY INVOLVES THE CARRYING ON OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES'. OUR TRUST HAVE MAINTAINED SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S FOR ACTIVITIES ALSO WE HAVE CARRIED OUT THE AUDIT TILL 31.03.2011. THE ACTIVITY WHICH WE ARE CARRYING I.E. EDUCATION IS COME UNDER DEFINITION GIVEN FOR CHARIT ABLE PURPOSE AS PER SECTION 2(15) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1. SO THE DECISION OF COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX II KOLHAPUR ABOUT CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12 AA GRANTED ON 15.09.2011 AND REJECTION OF APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80G(5)(VI) IS NOT A GOOD IN LAW. AS WE ARE CARRYING THE EDUCATIONAL OBJECT W HICH IS ONE OF THE OBJECT OF OUR TRUST. THOUGH OUR ACTIVITY OF CARRYING NURSERY SCHOOL IS NOT REGISTERED WITH EDUC ATION DEPARTMENT (THERE IS NO SYSTEM IN THE MAHARASHTRA EDUCATION DEPARTMENT TO REGISTERED THE NURSERY SCHO OL) IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE ARE NOT ACTING TOWARDS A CHAR ITABLE PURPOSE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT EVERY CHARITABLE OBJECT HAS TO BE REGISTERED WITH THE INSTITUTION INCORPORA TED BY GOVERNMENT FOR REGULARISING ACTIVITIES. THE FIVE LI MBS 7 WHICH ARE GIVEN IN DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE U/S 2(15) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 MAY HAVE A SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION. THERE MAY BE SOME OF THE OBJECTS WHIC H CAN BE REGISTERED AND THERE MAY BE SOME OF THE OBJECTS WHICH CANNOT BE REGISTERED WITH THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY DUE TO NON AVAILABILITY OF SYSTEM / PROCEDURE FOR REGISTER ING THAT OBJECTS. SO OBJECTION RAISED BY COMMISSIONER OF INC OME II KOLHAPUR FOR CANCELLING REGISTRATION GRANTED U/S 12 A TO OUR TRUST IS NOT A STANDING ON ANY FOUNDATION OF LA W, WHICH WILL BE REALIZED TO YOU IF YOU COULD REFER TH E ABOVE MENTIONED CASE AND DEFINITIONS U/S 2(15) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THIS IS BEING A TRUST, THE DECISIONS ARE TAKEN IN A MEETING WHICH HAS TO BE CALLED AS PER PROCEDURE OF TRUST AC T AND ISSUE HAS TO BE DECIDED BY GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO TH E MEMBER TO BE DISCUSS WELL IN ADVANCE BY ISSUING NOT ICE OF 7 DAYS. SO WE THE CHAIRMEN AND SECRETARY HUMBLY REQ UEST YOU WITH THE HONOR A LAW AND CONSIDER OUR APPLICATI ON FOR APPEAL TOWARDS REACTIVATION OF REGISTRATION UNDER 1 2AA GRANTED TO OUR TRUST ON 15.09.2011 AND OUR APPLICAT ION FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION U/S 80G(5)(VI). 4. THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE CANCELLATION OF REGIS TRATION U/S.12AA. THE CIT FOUND THAT THE SOCIETY FILED THE PROPOSAL T O START SEMI ENGLISH SCHOOL FOR 1 TO 4 TH STANDARD BUT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER RECEIVED ANY APPROVAL FROM THE CONCERNED CIT NOR STARTED SCH OOL. ACCORDING TO CIT, THERE WAS NO NORMAL SCHOOLING AS HELD BY HO NBLE PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BIHAR INSTITUTE OF MINING AND MINE SURVEYING VS. CIT (208) ITR 608). ACCORDING TO CIT, THERE WA S NO CHARITABLE ACTIVITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT, SO, PROCEEDED TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION GRANTED U/S.12AA OF THE ACT. AN OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND ASKED T O FILE SUBMISSION TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM AGAINST THE CA NCELLATION OF REGISTRATION GRANTED U/S.12AA OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PR OVIDED DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AS THERE WAS NO SUFFICIE NT TIME PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR DEFENDING CANCELLATION OF REGIS TRATION GRANTED U/S.12AA OF THE ACT. 8 5. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HARDLY GIVEN SEVEN DAYS OF TIME FOR FILING THE REPLY TO DEFEND ITS REGISTRATION U/S .12AA WHICH WAS NOT SUFFICIENT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. IT A MOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. SO IN THE INTERE ST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO HIM WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDIN G DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS AL SO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE CONCERNED CIT. 6. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION IN ITA NO.1262/PN/2014 W HICH IS WITH REGARD TO APPLICATION U/S.80G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT. A GAIN THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE OF A BSENCE OF DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THIS REGARD. FOLLOWI NG THE SAME REASONING, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE REJECTING THE APP LICATION U/S.80G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED, S O IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO HIM WITH A SIMILAR DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASS ESSEE. SINCE WE ARE RESTORING THE ISSUE TO CIT ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE , WE ARE REFRAINING FROM COMMENTING ON THE MERIT OF THE ISSUE AT HAND I N BOTH THE APPEALS I.E. ITA NO.1261 AND 1262/PN/2014. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL ITA NO.655/PN/2012 IS DISMISSED AND ITA NOS.1261 & 1262/PN/2014 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 20 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 20 TH JUNE, 2014 GCVSR 9 COPY TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT-II, KOLHAPUR 4. THE CIT-II, KOLHAPUR 5. THE DR, A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, I.T.A.T., PUNE