New Model Foundation, Ahmedabad V. The DIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 1721/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9904 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PF JAIN
• Section: 80G; 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM, & MANISH BORAD, AM. ITA NO.1721/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR: - NEW MODEL FOUNDATION, 1840, MALIWADA, NEAR SINDHI GALLA, DARGAH ROAD, VATVA, AHMEDABAD. VS CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN AABTN 5858Q APPELLANT BY SHRI P. F. JAIN, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL, CIT/DR DATE OF HEARING: 8/1/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11/01/2016 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 21.04.2015 PASSED BY CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER :- 1. THE LD. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION) HAS G RIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT GRANTING APPROVAL U/S 80 G OF THE I.T. ACT TO THE APPELLANT TRUST WITHOUT PROPERLY APPREC IATING THE FACTS IN ITS PROPER PERSPECTIVE. 2. HE HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT GRANTING APPROVAL U/S 80G OF THE IT ACT. WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT FACTORS AS PER THE LAW AND BASING HIS ORDER ON IRRELEVANT CONS IDERATIONS. ITA NO. 1721/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR - 2 3. HE HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING TH E APPLICATION IN FORM NO.10G FOR APPROVAL U/S 80G(5) OF THE ACT WITH OUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE QUERY LETTER DATED 0 1/11/2014 COULD NOT BE RESPONDED ON ACCOUNT OF UN-AVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEREAS MOST OF THE DETAILS REQUIRED STOOD FURNISHED. 4. ON THE FACTS THE APPELLANT TRUST OUGHT TO HAVE B EEN GRANTED REGISTRATION/APPROVAL U/S 80G OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO ALTER AND/O R TO MODIFY ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILE D APPLICATION SEEKING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80G(5) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). THE SAID AP PLICATION WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT(EXEMPTION) BY OBSERVING AS UNDE R: 4. THEREFORE, WITH A VIEW TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPLICANT, ANOTHER LETTER MARKED FINAL OPPORTUNITY WAS ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT TRUST ON 1 0/03/2015 REQUIRING THE DETAILS/DOCUMENTS AS MENTIONED THEREI N ON OR BEFORE 01.04.2015. IT WAS STATED WITHOUT ANY AMBIGU ITY IN THE SAID LETTER THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SAID LE TTER WILL ENTAIL REJECTION OF ITS APPLICATION UNDER REFERENCE. THE S AID LETTER WAS RETURNED BACK FROM POSTAL AUTHORITY WITH REMARK NO T KNOWN. THE LETTER WAS SENT TO THE ADDRESS WRITTEN ON FORM NO.10G. THIS LETTER ALSO FAILED TO EVOKE ANY RESPONSE FROM THE A PPLICANT. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETE DETAILS/DOCUM ENTS, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SATISFY ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF TH E ACTIVITIES OF THE ABOVE TRUST OR THE SAME BEING CARRIED OUT IN AC CORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. 5. LOOKING TO THE ABOVE FACTS, I AM UNABLE TO ARRIV E AT THE SATISFACTION OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES. HENCE, THE ITA NO. 1721/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR - 3 APPLICATION FILED IN FORM NO.10G FOR THE APPROVAL U /S 80G(5) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, IS REJECTED. 3. THE ASSESSEE, BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(EXEMPTION) HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRUST IS REGISTERED U/S 12AA OF THE IT ACT AND THE CERTIFICA TE OF REGISTRATION IS PLACED ON RECORD. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE REQUISI TE DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(EXEMPTION), BUT AS COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(EXEMPTION) DUE TO NON- RECEIPT OF NOTICE / LETTER WHICH WAS RETURNED BACK BY POSTAL AUTHORITIES, THE CIT(EXEMPTION), REJECTED THE APPLICATION. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE OR DER OF THE CIT(EXEMPTION). HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ILLEG ALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(EXEMPTION). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED SUBMISSIONS OF THE BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITY BELOW. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT ON 10.03.2015 A LETTER WAS ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT-TRUST TO FURNISH CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND AP PEAR BEFORE THE LD. ITA NO. 1721/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR - 4 CIT(EXEMPTION) AND THE LD. CIT(EXEMPTION) HAS RECOR DED THAT THE SAID LETTER WAS RETURNED BACK FROM POSTAL AUTHORITY WITH REMARK NOT KNOWN. THIS LETTER ALSO FAILED TO EVOKE ANY RESPON SE FROM THE APPLICANT. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETE DE TAILS/DOCUMENTS, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SATISFY ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ABOVE TRUST OR THE SAME BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORD ANCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE QUERY LETTER DATED 01/11/2014 COULD NOT BE RESPONDED DUE TO UN-AVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES BUT MOS T OF THE DETAILS REQUIRED STOOD FURNISHED. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DETAILED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 28 PAGES WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE ENCLOSED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 80G(5) OF T HE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(EXEM PTION) FOR DECISION AFRESH, ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON REC ORD. ACCORDINGLY, WE HEREBY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD.CIT(E) AND RESTORE THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO HIS FILE FOR DECISIO N AFRESH. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FURNISH THE DOCUMENTS BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(EXEMPTION) FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH. AFTER TAKING THE COPY OF THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO APPROACH LD . CIT(EXEMPTION) ITA NO. 1721/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR - 5 SUO MOTO, AND ON RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER, LD. CIT(EXEMPTION) IS TO DECIDE THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT AFRESH. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABO VE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 JANUARY, 2016 SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 11/01/2016 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO. 1721/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR - 6 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 08/01/2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 08/01/2016 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 11/01/2016 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: