M/s Artscapes, Chandigarh V. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh

ITA 1465/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5222 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI SARANGA L
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 80G; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1465/CHD/2016 [ ORDER U/S 80G(5)(VI) ] M/S ARTSCAPES, VS. THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS) , SCO-7, IIND FLOOR, C.R.BUILDING, 5 TH FLOOR, SECTOR 30-D, SECTOR 17-E, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN NO. AADTA4357P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RACHIT GOYAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAVI SARANGAL, CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 28.03.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.04.2017 ORDER PER MS. DIVA SINGH,JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 25/09/2016 OF CITA EXEMPTIONS CH ANDIGARH. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE PARTIES WERE HEARD O NLY IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 1 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE SEEKS AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH AS PER THE IMPUGNED ORDER NOTICE IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON THE SECOND OCCASION, HOWEVER THE FACT I S THAT NO NOTICE FOR THE SPECIFIC DATE OF HEARING WAS RECEIVED . IT WAS ALSO HIS SUBMISSIO N THAT IN REGARD TO THE DATE OF THE ORDER, IT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED UNDER SECTION 154 OF IN COME TAX ACT WHEREIN THE DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN GIVEN AS 16 /02/ 2017. ACCORDINGL Y, IT WAS HIS LIMITED PRAYER THAT ON THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO. 10G WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE S EEKS 80G APPROVAL, AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD MAY BE GRANTED. THE LD. AR GAVE HIS ORA L UNDERTAKING THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. CIT-DR RELI ED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT AS PER ORDER DATED 25/09/2016, NOTICE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE CAME BACK UNSERVED WITH THE COMMENT NO SU CH PERSON ON THIS ADDRESS ON 05/10/2016. THEREAFTER, ANOTHER SHOW CAUSE NOTICE W AS ISSUED AND THE APPEAL WAS LISTED 2 FOR HEARING ON 24/10/2016. THE SAID TYPOGRAPHICAL E RROR PRESUMABLY WAS CORRECTED BY THE ACIT (EXEMPTIONS) VIDE ORDER DATED 16/02 2016. A P ERUSAL OF THE RECORD UNEQUIVOCALLY DEMONSTRATES THAT ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HEARD BEFORE THE PASSING OF THE ORDER. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE LAST DATE OF HEARING WAS 2 5/10/2016 AND THE ORDER WAS PASSED ON 16.02.2010. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I FIND NO GOOD R EASON WHY BEFORE THE PASSING OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) COULD NOT HAVE IS SUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SPECIFIC DATE. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE AFOREMENTIONED P ECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ORDER TO AFFORD THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET- ASIDE DIRECTING THE SAID AUTHORITY TO PASS A SPEAKI NG ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. WHILE SO DIRECTING IT IS HOPED THAT THE OPPORTUNITY SO PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABUSED AS FAILING WHICH THE LD. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN THE SUBMISSIONS AVAILABLE ON RECORD 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH APRIL,2017. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (D IVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 5 TH APRIL,2017. POONAM/DNS COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.