Jadavjibhai & Nanduben Kansagara Foundation, Rajkot V. The CIT (exemption), Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

ITA 172/RJT/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9255 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-12-2023
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRISHRAMDEEPSINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIR.KDOSHI

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण , राजकोटनयायपीी INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, RAJKOTBENCH,RAJKOT (ConductedthroughE-Court) BEFOREMsSUCHITRAKAMBLE,JUDICIALMEMBER And SHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER आयकरअपीलसं ./ITANo.172/Rjt/2023 धििाधरणणवध / Asstt.Year:N.A Jadavjibhai&NandubenKansagara Foundation, PlotNo.2819to2826, Lodhika, G.I.D.C, Metoda, Rajkot-360021. PAN:AAFCJ4667E Vs.TheCommissionerof Income-tax(Exemption), Ahmedabad. (Applicant)(Respondent) Assesseeby:ShriR.KDoshi,A.R Revenueby:ShriShramdeepSinha,CIT.D.R सुिणाईकीतारीख/DateofHearing:21/12/2023 घोवणाकीतारीख /DateofPronouncement:05/01/2024 आदेश/ORDER PERWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER: Thecaptionedappealhasbeenfiledattheinstanceoftheassesseeagainst theorderoftheLd.CommissionerofIncomeTax,(Exemption),Ahmedabad arisinginthematteroforderpassedunderSection12ABoftheIncomeTaxAct, 1961(here-in-afterreferredtoas"theAct")relevanttotheAssessmentYearN.A. ITANo.172/Rjt/2023 A.Y.N.A 2 2.Attheoutset,wenotethattheLd.PCIT,hasissuedtwonoticestothe assesseedated06/12/2022and29/12/2022tojustifythegenuinenessofthe activitiescarriedoutbyitbasedonthedocumentaryevidence.Buttheassessee failedtocomplywiththesameandthereforetheLd.CIT(E),rejectedthe applicationmadebytheassesseeforregistrationu/s12ABoftheAct. 3.Atthetimeofhearing,theLd.Counselbeforeuscontendedthatallthe necessarydocumentsforregistrationu/s12ABoftheActweresubmittedbutfairly concededthatthenoticesissuedbyLd.CIT(E)werenotrespondedto.Itwas submittedbytheLd.ARthatoneofthetrustees,namelyShriVijaybhai JadavjibhaiKansagaraisnotwellversedwithemailsandthecomputer. Furthermore,hehasattainedtheageof65yearsbeingseniorcitizen,sohecould notfollowthenoticesissuedbytheLd.CIT(E).TheLd.ARfurthercontendedthat theothertrustee,ShriDenishKansagaraduringtherelevanttimei.eDecember 2022wasonbed-restduetohisillness.Thus,aspertheLd.AR,theother Directoralsocouldnotrespondtothenoticesissuedbytheld.CIT(E)duetohis illness. 4.Besidestheabove,theLd.ARalsocontendedthattheassesseehasafair chancetogetregistrationu/s12ABoftheAct.Therefore,ameritoriouscase shouldnotbedismissedonaccountoftechnicallapse.AssuchtheLd.ARprayed torestorethemattertotheLd.CIT(E),forfreshadjudicationaspertheprovision oflaw.TheLd.ARalsoassuredthattheassesseeshouldextendfullcooperation. 5.Ontheotherhand,Ld.DRvehementlysupportedtheorderoftheld. CIT(Exemption). 6.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Thereisnodisputetothefactthatthenotices issuedbytheLd.CIT(E),werenotcompliedwithandthereforetheapplication filedbytheassesseeforregistrationu/s12ABoftheAct,cametobedismissed.It ITANo.172/Rjt/2023 A.Y.N.A 3 isthetritelawthatameritoriouscaseshouldnotbedismissedonaccountof technicallapses.WenotethattheHon’bleGujaratHighCourtinthecaseofS.R. KoshtiVs.CITreportedin276ITR165hasheldasunder: 7.20.Awordofcaution.TheauthoritiesundertheActareunderanobligationtoact inaccordancewithlaw.TaxcanbecollectedonlyasprovidedundertheAct.Ifan assessee,underamistake,misconceptionoronnotbeingproperlyinstructed,isover- assessed,theauthoritiesundertheActarerequiredtoassisthimandensurethatonly legitimatetaxesduearecollected.ThisCourt,inanunreporteddecisionincaseofVinay ChandulalSatiav.N.O.Parekh,CIT[Spl.CivilApplicationNo.622of1981dated20-8- 1981],haslaiddowntheapproachthattheauthoritiesmustadoptinsuchmattersinthe followingterms: 8."TheSupremeCourthasobservedinnumerousdecisions, includingRamlalv.RewaCoalfieldsLtd.AIR1962SC361,StateofWest Bengalv.Administrator,HowrahMunicipalityAIR1972SC749andBabutmalRaichand Oswalv.LaxmibaiR.TarteAIR1975SC1297,thattheStateauthoritiesshouldnot raisetechnicalpleasifthecitizenshavealawfulrightandthelawfulrightisbeing deniedtothemmerelyontechnicalgrounds.TheStateauthoritiescannotadoptthe attitudewhichprivatelitigantsmightadopt." 7.Inviewoftheaboveandconsideringthereasonfornon-responsefromthe sideoftheassessee,weareinclinedintheinterestofjusticeandfairplayto extendonemoreopportunitytotheassessee.Therefore,theissueinvolvedinthe appealissetasidetothefileofLd.CIT(E)forfreshadjudicationasperthe provisionsoflaw.Needlesstomentionthatassesseeshallco-operateduringthe proceedingsandshallnotseekanyadjournmentwithoutjustcause.Hence,the groundofappealoftheassesseeisallowedforstatisticalpurposes. 8.Intheresult,theappealfiledbytheassesseeisallowedforstatistical purposes. OrderpronouncedintheCourton05/01/2024atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/- (SUCHITRAKAMBLE)(WASEEMAHMED) JUDICIALMEMBERACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad;Dated05/01/2024 Manish,Sr.PSTRUECOPY