AAGAZ (SOCIETY FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE), AMRITSAR V. COMMISIONER OF THE INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 193/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6238 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 193/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s AAGAZ (Society for the people by the people), 109, Amarkot, Near 22 No. Phatak, Islamabad Road, Amritsar [PAN: AABAA8714B] Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None. Respondent by: Sh. Anupam K. Garg, (DR) Date of Hearing: 01.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 23.03.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the impugned order dated 31/01/2018 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh, in respect of the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The present case was posted for hearing on 03.01.2019, 28.03.2019, 16.05.2019, 16.09.2021,10.12.2021, 11.02.2022, and 01.03. 2022 however I.T.A. No. 193/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2016-17 2 none appeared for the assessee on the above-mentioned dates of hearing except one date 28.03.2019 where Shri Raj Sharma CA appeared for the assessee and sought adjournment. 3. The appellant assessee has alleged that the impugned order is wrong on facts and passed without granting sufficient opportunity. It was contended in the grounds of appeal that the CIT exemption has wrongly assessed the nature of activities carried on by the appellant society as society is exclusively dealing in educational activities like vocational and industrial training and skilled development and that he has misplaced reliance on the order of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of ‘Amarawati Welfare Society versus Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others (2017)390 ITR 471(P&H). Thus, the impugned order is based on erroneous observation and interpretation of law. 4. Having heard the learned DR, perusal of record and the impugned order, it is seen that the assessee society is running ITI and skill development Centre and claimed exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the act. The main grievance of the assessee is that the CIT appeal has passed order in arbitrary manner by without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard. Admittedly, the learned CIT appeal has issued the show I.T.A. No. 193/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2016-17 3 cause notice dated 08.08.2017 where the assessee’s AR appeared and filed written submission and explained that society is running ITI and skill development Centre and receipts collected from the students are shown in the income and expenditure account of the assessee. 5. The learned CIT appeal observed that that the appellant society’s case does not meet the essential conditions that solely for education and not for profits. He is also observed that in the appellant’s case there was no mention of the skilled allotment Centre in the MoA document of the assessee society. He also noted that the appellant society has not taken any other educational institutional activity. However, in our view, the learned CIT while arriving at adverse view or finding against the assessee society, ought to have granted sufficient opportunity of hearing in rebuttal to the assessee so that the society could have explained its case that how it meets or qualify the conditions for the exemption claimed under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the act. 6. Thus, such an order of the CIT(A) in rejecting the appeal without providing proper opportunity to the assessee cann’t be approved as it is being against the principles of natural justice. In the light of these facts, we are of the view that CIT(A) has not afforded proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and I.T.A. No. 193/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2016-17 4 restore the matter back to his file with the direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merit after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. No doubt, the assessee shall cooperate in the fresh proceeding before the CIT(A). 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.03.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member Date: 23.03.2022 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(Appeals) (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order