K.J. Mehta T.B. Hospital, Vadodara V. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Circle-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 1279/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1706 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

SMC-ITA NO. 1279 AHD 2017 KJ MEHTA TB HOSPITAL VS. ACIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD [ BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT ] ITA NO. 1279/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 KJ MEHTA TB HOSPITAL ............APP ELLANT AMARGADH, DIST. BHAVNAGAR-364210 [PAN: AAATK 3503 E] VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION) .......................RESPONDENT CIRCLE 1, AHMEDABAD APPEARANCES BY: SANJAY R. SHAH FOR THE APPELLANT JAYANT JHAVERI FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 28.02.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 24.05.2019 O R D E R 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER DATED 9 TH SEPTEMBER 2014, PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE APPEAL IS SAID TO BE TIME BARRED BY 929 DAYS . HOWEVER, ON A PERUSAL OF MATERIAL ON RECORD, I FIND THAT THOUGH THE APPEAL W AS DISPOSED OF BY THE CIT(A) ON 09.09.2014, THE CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF CIT(A)S ORD ER WAS HANDED OVER, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEE, ONLY ON 27.04.20 17. THE APPEAL FILED ON 26.05.2017 WAS THUS NOT REALLY TIME BARRED. I, THE REFORE, PROCEED TO TAKE UP THE MATTER ON MERITS. 3. ON A PERUSAL OF IMPUGNED ORDER, I FIND THAT THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON 06.08.2014, SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT SINCE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRUST IS HANDED OVER TO COLLE CTOR, THE NOTICE OF HEARING SHOULD BE ISSUED TO HIM. HE REJECTED THIS PLEA AND OBSERV ED AS FOLLOWS:- 3. IN THIS CASE, APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED ON 31.01.20 13. NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 13.05.2013, FIXING THE COMPLIANCE ON 04.06.2013 AT 11.20 AM. THE APPELLANT SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. NOTICE WAS AGAIN ISSUED ON 13.0 6.2013 FIXING THE COMPLIANCE ON 26.06.20L3 AT 11.20 AM. AS NO ONE APP EARED ON 26.06.2013, NOTICE WAS AGAIN ISSUED ON 02.07.2013 FIXING THE CO MPLIANCE ON 18.07.2013 SMC-ITA NO. 1279 AHD 2017 KJ MEHTA TB HOSPITAL VS. ACIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 2 OF 3 AT 12.30 P.M. AGAIN THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE AND N OTICE WAS ISSUED ON 23.07.2013 FIXING THE COMPLIANCE ON 07.08.2013 AT 1 2.30 P.M. ON 07.08.2013, THE APPELLANT THROUGH ITS AR SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT FOR 3-4 WEEKS, WHICH WAS ALLOWED. NOTICE WAS AGAIN ISSUED ON 02.09.2013 FIX ING THE COMPLIANCE ON 26.09.2013 AT 10.30 A.M. ON 26.09.2013, THE AR AGAI N SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT FOR 3-4 WEEKS, WHICH WAS ALLOWED TO HIM, BY FIXING THE COMPLIANCE ON 25.10.2013. ON 25.10.2013, THE APPELLANT AGAIN SOUG HT ADJOURNMENT FOR 3-4 WEEKS. ON 23.07.2014, SHRI TUSHAR P. HEMANI, AR OF THE APPELLANT AND CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 06.08.2014. ON 06.08.2014, THE APP ELLANT SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT, STATING THAT NOTICE OF HEARING IS TO B E ISSUED TO THE COLLECTOR, AS THE ADMINISTRATION OF CAPTIONED TRUST HAS BEEN HAND ED OVER TO HIM. 3.1 FROM THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, IT APPEARS THAT THE APPELLANT IS SEEKING TIME ON ONE PRETEXT OR ANOTHER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOV E, THE APPEAL IS BEING DECIDED ON MERITS. 4. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVING PE RUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT CONSIDERING HUGE L ITIGATION ABOUT TRUST MANAGEMENT WHICH TRAVELLED UPTO HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND CONS IDERING THE FACT THAT THE TRUST WAS, AT THAT POINT OF TIME, UNDER EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF THE COLLECTOR, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THIS REQUEST. IN ANY CASE, WHEN EFFE CTIVE CONTROL OF THE TRUST IS WITH THE COLLECTOR, THE NOTICE INDEED SHOULD HAVE BEEN I SSUED TO HIM. INTERESTINGLY, IT WAS MORE THAN ONE MONTH AFTER THE LAST DATE OF HEARING THAT THE APPEAL WAS EVENTUALLY DISPOSED OF, AND YET THIS BONAFIDE REQUEST OF THE A SSESSEE WAS DECLINED. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS AND BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF T HE CASE, I DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJU DICATION DE NOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER AND AFTER GIVIN G ONE MORE FAIR AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. ORDERED, ACCORDINGLY. AS I AM REMITTING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A), I SEE NO NEED TO DEAL WITH THE MATTER, ON MERITS, AT THIS STAGE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 24 TH MAY, 2019. SD/- PRAMOD KUMAR (VICE PRES IDENT) AHMEDABAD, THE 24 TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 **BT COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDE NT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD