S S Jain Sabha (Rawalpindi) Delhi Regd., New Delhi V. DIT (Exemptions), New Delhi

ITA 1283/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3503 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 17-04-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J K JAIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1283/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: -------- M/S S.S. JAIN SABHA (RAWALPINDI) DELHI (REGD.) VS. DIT(EXEMPTION), 35-D, KAMLA NAGAR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DELHI 110 007 LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI 110092 (PAN: AAGTS1562D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. J.K. JAIN, CA REVENUE BY : SH. N.K. BANSAL, SR. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 01.09.2011 OF THE LD. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMP TIONS), DELHI ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. DIT(E) ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FA CTS IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT PROVIDING DUE, PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION. 2. THAT THE LD. DIT(E) ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FA CTS IN DISPOSING OFF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U /S. 12A FOR NON- APPEARANCE ON 8.6.2011 WHEN AN 2 APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS SENT ON 7.6.2011 BY SPEED POST AD WHICH WAS DULY RECEIVED IN HIS OFFICE ON 8.6.2011 AND IN NOT PROVIDING FURTHER OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD. 3. THAT THE ORDERS OF THE LD. DIT(E) IS BAD IN LAWS AN D ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 4. THAT THE ORDERS PASSED IN ERRONEOUS, ILLEGAL, AGAIN ST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND T HE WELL SETTLED LAWS. 5. THE APPELLANT MAY KINDLY BE PERMITTED TO ADD MORE A T THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESS EE HAS STATED THAT LD. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) HAS PA SSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. DIT(E) IS NON-SPEAKING ORDER. HE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING ALL NECESSARY EVIDENCES FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM BE FORE THE LD. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) AND HE REQUESTE D THAT ISSUE IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE DIT(E), DELHI TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM BEFORE HIM. 3 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR STRONGLY OPPOSED THE REQ UEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND STATED THAT ASSESSE E DID NOT COOPERATE THE LD. DIT(E) IN THE PROCEEDINGS, HENCE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE A UTHORITIES ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND WE FIND THAT L D. DIT(E) HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION U/S. 12AA OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCES, BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF ACTIVI TIES DONE. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE ARE REPRODUCING THE RELEVANT PARA NO. 2 TO 4 AT PAGE NO. 1 & 2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER:- 2. ON 12.05.2011, THE AR OF THE SOCIETY APPEARED A ND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. ON HIS REQUEST, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 20.05.2011. ON 20.05.2011, SHRI J.K. JAIN, CA APPEARED AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. ON HIS REQUEST THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 08.6.2011. TILL DATE NO COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE APPLICANT. 3. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12AA STIPULATE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961:- I) THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY SHOULD BE OF CHARITABLE IN NATURE; 4 II) THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY SHOULD BE GENUINE. 4. ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS FILED BY THE APPLICANT , IT IS REVEALED THAT THE SOCIETY / TRUST HAS SUBMITTED ACCOUNTS ONLY. IN ABSENCE OF THE EVIDENCE AND BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF ACTIVITIES DONE AND OTHER DETAILS CALLED BY THIS OFFICE, THE GENUINENES S OF THE CLAIM OF THE TRUST/SOCIETY TO BE A CHARITABL E TRUST IS NOT ESTABLISHED. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPLICAT ION FILED BY THE APPLICANT FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/ S. 12AA IS HEREBY REJECTED. 5.1 AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID FINDINGS, WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD . DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTAN TIATING ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE LD. DIT(E) WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABL E IN THE EYES OF LAW AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WE ALSO FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THIS CASE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE NEEDS TO BE REMI TTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. DIT(E) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AS PER LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ARE SET ASIDE AN D RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. DIT(E) AND THE LD. DIT(E) IS DI RECTED TO CONSIDER 5 THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AFRESH AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5.2 KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED THROUGH HIS COUNSEL TO BE PRESENT BEFORE THE LD. DIT(E) ON 17.07.2017 AT 10.00 AM AND FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE LD. DIT(E) AND DID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY AD JOURNMENT AND FILE ALL THE NECESSARY PAPERS/EVIDENCES BEFORE HIM TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 19-04-2017. SD/- SD/- (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 19-04-2017 SR BHATANGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.