Aathmaartham, Bangalore V. ITO (Exemptions), Ward-1, Bangalore

ITA 1517/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7521 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 22-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1 517 /BANG/201 6 M/S. AATHMAARTHAM, NO.D-804, MANTRI FLORA, SARJAPUR ROAD, IBLUR GATE, BENGALURU - 560012. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD 1, BENGALURU APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. SUDHEENDRA , CA REVENUE BY : MS. NEERA MALHOTRA, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 21.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 . 0 9 .201 7 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(E), DENYING THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE IT ACT, (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS AN ACT) BY RAISING VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT AFFOR DED TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE COMPLETE DETAILS. THE CIT(E) HAD FIXED THE HEA RING FIRSTLY ON 12.07.2016 AND THE SECOND HEARING FOR 20.07.2017. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED TO FILE THE REQUISITE INFORMATION BUT IT WANTS TIME WH ICH WAS NOT GIVEN BY THE CIT(E) AND CIT(E) HAS REJECTED THE REQUEST VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 27.07.2016. ITA NO. 1517/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 2 THE LEARNED DR SIMPLY PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(E). 3. HAVING CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(E) , WE FIND THAT CIT(E) HAS FIXED DATES FOR HEARING WHICH IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(E) AS TO HOW MUCH OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE. WHA TEVER GATHERED FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE FIND THAT HE HAS FIXED ONLY FEW DATES FOR HEARING AND THEREAFTER HE REJECTED THE REQUEST FOR REGISTRATION . RATHER, HE HAS NOT EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT THE ISSUE OF REGISTRATION REQUIRES FRESH ADJUDICATION BY THE CIT(E). ACCORDI NGLY, WE SET ASIDE HIS ORDER AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO READJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE A SSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( A. K. GARODIA ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE. DATED: 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017. /NSHYLU/* COPY TO: 1. APPELLANTS 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE.