M/s. Tetrahedran Educational Society, Hyderabad V. DIT, Hyderabad

ITA 139/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 53524 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B V PRASAD REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: V SIVA KUMAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.139/HYD/11 M/S. TETRAHEDRAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD ( PAN AAAAT2742 B) V/S. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.SIVAKUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.V.PRASAD REDDY O R D E R PER G.C.GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION). 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION) HY DERABAD ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPELLANTS APPLICATIONS SEE KING APPROVAL U/S. 80G(5)(VI) OF THE I.T. ACT, 61 3. THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION) OU GHT TO HAVE GRANTED APPROVAL U/S. 80G(5)(VI) TO THE APPELLANT I N ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 11AA(4) OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 IN AS M UCH AS THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS LAID DOW N U/S. 80G(5). THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTIO N) WAS NOT CORRECT IN STATING THAT THE ORIGINAL MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION WAS NOT PRODUCED, WHICH IN FACT WAS DON E SO. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 471 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS ORIGINALLY FILED A SINGLE APPEAL AGAINST CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOM E-TAX(EXEMPTION) PASSED UNDER S.12A AND S.80G OF THE ACT. LATER ON, THE AS SESSEE AFTER BECOMING ITA NO.139./HYD/11 M/S. TETRAHEDRAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYD 2 AWARE OF ITS MISTAKE IN PREFERRING A SINGLE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION) REFUSING REGISTRA TION UNDER S.12A AND ALSO APPROVAL UNDER S.80G, FILED SEPARATE APPEAL BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL, BEING THE PRESENT ONE VIZ. ITA NO.139/HYD/2011, AGAINST T HE ORDER REFUSING APPROVAL UNDER S.80G OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME- TAX(EXEMPTION), AND AS SUCH, THERE WAS A DELAY IN F ILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED T HAT NO SUFFICIENT REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATI ON OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS REGARD ING THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN VIEW OF THE FACTS NARRATED IN THE PRECEDING PARA OF THIS ORDER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN F ILING THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND ACCORDINGLY THE DELAY IS CONDONED. 5. WITH REGARD TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN SIMILAR FACTS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION) REFU SING REGISTRATION UNDER S.12A TO HIS FILE FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION, AS SUF FICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION. WE FIN D THAT THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION) HAS PASSED A SING LE ORDER REFUSING REGISTRATION UNDER S.12A OF THE ACT AND APPROVAL UN DER S.80G OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUM STANCES, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION) REFU SING REGISTRATION UNDER S.12A OF THE ACT FOR PASSING A DE NOVO ORDER. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT SHALL BE JUSTIFIED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE DI RECTOR OF INCOME- TAX(EXEMPTION) WITH REGARD TO REFUSAL OF APPROVAL U NDER S.80G ITA NO.139./HYD/11 M/S. TETRAHEDRAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYD 3 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE AS WELL, AND RESTORE TH E MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A DE NOVO ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 5 TH AUGUST, 2011 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (G.C.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DT/- 5 TH AUGUST, 2011 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. TETRAHEDRAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, 5 9 - 14/D, SAIFABAD, OPP. SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD 2. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD 3. DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION) HYDERABAD 4. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S