IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.1950 & 1951(MDS)/2010 M/S. GILEAD MINISTRIES, CHIRAYANKUZHI, KANJIACODE POST 629 155, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. PAN AABTG4254F. 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: THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.1951(MDS)/2010 IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-I AT MADURAI DATED 7-10- 2010, REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR OBTAINING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT, 1961. - - ITA NOS.1950 & 1951 OF 2010 2 THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.1950(MDS)/2010 IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE SAME COMMISSIONER REJECTIN G THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR OBTAINING APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES IN DETAIL. 3. THERE IS A DELAY OF 20 DAYS IN FILING THESE APP EALS BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ON HEARING TH E EXPLANATION 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. THESE APPEALS ARE THUS ADMITTED FOR HEARING. 4. AS FAR AS THE APPEAL AGAINST THE REJECTION OF APPLICATION FILED FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12 AA IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAS ACTED UPON CERTAI N SURMISES AND PREMISES, NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTUAL AND ACTUAL V ERIFICATION. THE COMMISSIONER HAS STATED THAT REPORTS WERE RECEI VED FROM THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE COMMISSIONER DID NOT CAU SE ANY ENQUIRY. HIS CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PROPOSIN G TO CARRY ON RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIM ING IT AS CHARITABLE, WHICH IS NOT PROPER AND EVEN FOR CARRYI NG ON RELIGIOUS - - ITA NOS.1950 & 1951 OF 2010 3 ACTIVITIES, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE QUALIFIED PE RSONS AS TRUSTEES TO CARRY ON ECCLESIAL DUTIES. 5. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WE FIND THAT HE HAS REJECTED THE APPLIC ATION OF THE 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. 7. THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 80G HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ON THE S AME GROUND APPLIED FOR THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF T HE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX UNDER SECTION 80G IS ALSO SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS REM ITTED TO HIM FOR FRESH ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER HEARING T HE ASSESSEE. 8. IN RESULT THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. - - ITA NOS.1950 & 1951 OF 2010 4 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.