M/s. David & David Trust, CHENNAI V. ITO, Nagercoil

ITA 1947/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 194721714 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 12-09-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR I V IJAYAKUMAR IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 80G

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1947(MDS)/2010 M/S. DAVID & DAVID TRUST, NO.6/28-B, PARVATHIPURAM, TRIVANDRUM ROAD, NAGERCOIL 629 003. PAN AABTD2402L VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1), NAGERCOIL. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : DR. I.VIJAY AKUMAR, IRS, CIT-DR. DATE OF HEARING : 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-I, AT MADURAI DAT ED 26-10-2009, WHEREIN HE HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RECOGNITION UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. - - ITA NO.1947 OF 2010 2 2. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES IN DETAIL. 3. THERE IS A DELAY OF 19 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPE AL BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ON HEARING THE E XPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE DELAY WAS CAUSED FOR REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORD INGLY THE DELAY IS CONDONED. THIS APPEAL IS THUS ADMITTED FO R HEARING. 4. WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAS ACTED UPON CERTAIN SURMISES AND PREMISES, NOT SUPPORTED BY FAC TUAL AND ACTUAL VERIFICATION. THE COMMISSIONER HAS STATED T HAT A REPORT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. HE FURT HER SAYS THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS NOT STATED AS TO WHETHE R THE ASSESSEE QUALIFIES FOR THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80 G OF THE ACT. IT SHOWS THAT THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS ONLY THEORETICAL. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY. THE COMMISSIONER ALSO DID NOT CAUSE ANY ENQUIRY. H IS CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS NOT MADE OUT ANY CASE M ENTIONING FUND REQUIREMENT FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND THEREFO RE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80G OF TH E ACT. 5. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WE FIND THAT HE HAS REJECTED THE APPLIC ATION OF THE - - ITA NO.1947 OF 2010 3 ASSESSEE WITHOUT MAKING PROPER ENQUIRIES. HE HAS MA DE CERTAIN GENERAL OBSERVATIONS, BUT MANY OF THEM BEING NOT VA LID IN LAW. 6. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX A ND REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO HIM TO RECONSIDER THE APPLICATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE SHAL L BE GIVEN AN EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON MONDAY, THE 12 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2011 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. V.A.P. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.