M/s Trinity Academic Society Kullu, Kullu V. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh

ITA 142/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6938 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI SARANGA L
• Assessee Lawyers: VINIT KRISHAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.142/CHD/2017 (UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI OF THE ACT) M/S TRINITY ACADEMIC SOCIETY KULLU, VS. THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS), MOHAL, KULLLU (HIMACHAL PRADESH). CHANDIGARH. LUDHIANA. PAN: AADAT7876K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VINIT KRISHAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAVI SARANGAL, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 16.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.08.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPT IONS), CHANDIGARH (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(E)) DA TED 28.11.2016, PASSED U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(E) IN DENYING EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSES SEE U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(E) IS AN EX-PARTE ORDER AND THAT NO OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS GRANTED BY THE LD.CIT(E) BEFORE DECIDING THE ABOVE APPEAL . THE LD. 2 AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION T O THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI RAVINDER PAL WHO IS PRESIDENT OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN DEPOSED THAT T HOUGH THE LD.CIT(E) HAD MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER THAT CERTA IN QUESTIONNAIRE WAS E-MAILED TO THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY ON 17.10.2016 BUT THE SAID E-MAIL SENT BY THE LD.CIT(E ) WENT INTO SPAM E-MAIL AND HENCE DID NOT COME INTO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. FURTHER THE LD.CIT(E) HAD SE NT SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRE ASKING THE ASS ESSEE TO REPLY TO THE QUERIES BY 23.11.2016, WHERE THE SAID NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 26.11.2016 AND AS S UCH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD.CIT(E) ON 23.11.2016. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO INVITE D OUR ATTENTION TO SPEED POST TRACKING SHOWING THAT THE I TEM NO.EP425521459IN WAS DISPATCHED BY THE LD.CIT(E) ON 24.11.2016 WHICH WAS RECEIVED AT THE CONCERNED POST OFFICE ON 26.11.2016. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REASONABLY EXPLAINED HIS ABSENCE ON THE DATE OF HEA RING BEFORE THE LD.CIT(E). THE ASSESSEE, IN OUR VIEW, I S REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN PROPER HEARING BY THE LD.CIT(E). IN VIE W OF THIS, THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(E) IS HEREBY SET A SIDE AND THE APPEAL IS RESTORED TO THE LD.CIT(E) TO DECIDE T HE APPEAL AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 3 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH AUGUST, 2017. SD/- SD/- (B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 28 TH AUGUST, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH