The Prabandhak Samiti Arya Girls Senior School, Shahabad Markanda V. CIT(E), Chandigarh

ITA 1617/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9999 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G S PHANI KISHORE
• Assessee Lawyers: B M MONGA ROHIT KAURA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH'B', CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1617/CHD/2018 UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) THE PRABANDHAK SAMITI ARYA VS. CIT(E) GIRLS SENIOR SCHOOL, CHANDIGARH SHAHABAD MARKANDA PAN NO. AAATA9323J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI. B.M. MONGA, ROHIT KAURA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI G.S. PHANI KISHO RE, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 22/05/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/05/2019 O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI. VICE PRESIDENT : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 31/10/2018 OF LD. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(EXEMPTIONS), CHAND IGARH DENYING THE APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)| (VI) IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE SE T ASIDE. 2. THAT THE CIT [EXEMPTIONS) CHANDIGARH IS NOT JUSTIFI ED WHILE DISMISSING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON THE GROUND OF N ON APPEARANCE WHEN THE NOTICE WAS SERVED ON APPELLANT O FAG END THAT TOO B Y PASSING A ON SPEAKING ORDER. 3. THAT THE CIT(E) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PASSING THE ORD ER IN LIMINE & NOT ON MERITS PARTICULARLY WHEN ALL THE INFORMATION REGARDING AIM S & OBJECTS AND INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTS FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS WERE ALREADY ON RECORD. 2 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES, LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. VIDE GROUND NO. 2 & 3 THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE EX- PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(E) AND DISMISSING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FI LED AN APPLICATION IN FORM NO. 56D FOR APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'ACT'). THE LD. CIT(E) DISMISSED THE APPLICATION IN LIMINE BY OBSERVING THAT THE OPPORTUNITY WAS ACCORD ED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 22/10/2018 AND THE MATTER WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 29/10/2018, ON THE SAID DATE NOBODY ATTENDED NOR WAS THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT . 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO NOTI CE FOR HEARING WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(E) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. 7. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. CIT DR SUPPORTED T HE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(E). 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PART IES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN T HE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE LD. CIT(E) REJECTED THE APPL ICATION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE BY PASSING THE EX-PARTE ORDER. H OWEVER, IT IS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD AS TO WHETHER THE NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SER VED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED, UNHEA RD AS PER THE MAXIM, 'AUDI ALTERAM PERTAM'. 3 WE THEREFORE BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF NA TURAL JUSTICE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(E) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE A ND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/05/2019) SD/- SD/- (S.S. GODARA) (N.K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 22/05/2019 AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT, 2. THE RESPONDENT, 3. TH E CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR