Baba Farid Univercity of Health Science, Faridkot V. CIT(E), Chandigarh

ITA 2/CHANDI/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3684 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-06-2021
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C CHANDRAKANTA CIT
• Assessee Lawyers: G K GARG
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside; Audi alteram partem

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH A, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) .., !' .. , # $% BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , R.L. NEGI, JM ITA NO.2/CHD/2021 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2019-20 BABA FARID UNIVERS ITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE, ADV. G.K. GARG, STREET GOLDY ADVOCATE, CIRCULAR ROAD, FARIDKOT-151203, PUNJAB THE CIT(E) ROOM NO. 1, 5 TH FLOOR C.R. BUILDING SECTOR 17-E, CHANDIGARH-160017 PAN NO: AAAGB0018A APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.K. GARG, ADVOCATE #!' REVENUE BY : SMT. C. CHANDRAKANTA, CIT $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 02/06/2021 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/06/2021 $&/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 18/09/2020 OF THE LD. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH. 2. THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE APPEAL IS BARRE D BY LIMITATION BY 53 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELA Y DT. 29/01/2021 STATING THEREIN AS UNDER: SUB:- REPLY TO NOTICE FOR DEFECTS IN APPEAL REF.:- APPEAL NO. ITA NO.-2/CHANDI/2021 A.Y. 2019-2 0 DATED 21/01/2021. SIR, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT ABOVE SAID NOTICE WAS RECEIVED AND THE REPLY TO THE NOTICE IS UNDER:- 2 REGD. DELAY IN FILLING OF APPEAL:- THAT THE UNIVERSITY HAD FILED A APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (EXEMPTION) FOR REJECTING THE APPLICAT ION U/S 10(23C)(VI) BY DELAY OF 53 DAYS DUE TO PANDEMIC OF COVID-19 & MOST OF OFFICE R OF UNIVERSITY BECOME POSITIVE AND APPEAL ORDER IN ORIGINAL (EXCEPT COPY RECEIVED ONLINE) IS NOT RECEIVED TO UNIVERSITY BY POST TILL TODAY. SO, THE UNIVERSITY MAY NOT FILE THE APPEAL IN-TIME WITHOUT ANY INTENTION. KEEPING IN VIEW OF PANDEMIC OF COVID-19, PLEASE CON SIDER APPLICATION FOR CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILLING OF APPEAL. REGD. APPEAL/ CROSS OBJECTION IN PRESCRIBED FORM .- THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED IN OLD FORMAT OF FORM 36 WRONGLY. THAT HEREBY I AM ENC LOSING THE CORRECT AND COMPLETE FORM OF FORM-36. PLEASE CONSIDER THE SAME WITH OLD FORMAT AND OBLIGE. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IF ANY OCCURRED WAS DUE TO PANDEMIC OF COVID-19 , THEREFORE THE SAME MAY BE CONDONED. 4. THE LD. CIT DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE THEREFORE BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID APPLI CATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE CONDONE THE DELAY AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED. 6. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (EXEMPTION) IS DEF ECTED BOTH IN LAW AND FACTS AND HENCE LIABLE TO SET ASIDE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (EXEMPTION) HAS MISDIRECTED HIM SELF BY REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION (FORM-56) WITHOUT GIVING THE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HARD OR GOING THROUGH THE REPLY FILED ON E-PO RTAL AS WELL AS EMAILED. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSION AND RECORD ALREADY PLACED ON FILE, YOUR HONOR IS REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE REJECTION ORDER AND PASS THE SUCH ORDER DEEMED FIT IN FAVOR OF ASSESSEE. 3. THE APPELLANT CAN LEAVE OR ADD ANY GROUNDS OF AP PEAL BEFORE DISPOSAL OF APPEAL. 4. APPEAL IS IN TIME (NOTIFICATION NO.35 / 2020, DA TED 24 JUNE 2020 AND COMES INTO FORCE FROM 30 JUNE 2020). 3 FROM THE AFORESAID GROUNDS IT IS GATHERED THAT MAIN GRI EVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD NOT PR OVIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 7. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE F URNISHED AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). THE LD. CIT(E) REJECTED THE SAID APPLICATI ON BY OBSERVING IN PARA 3 & 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER: 3. IN RESPONSE, THE APPLICANT HAS REPLIED ONLINE.ON PERUSAL OF THE REPLY OF THE APPLICANT, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANYTHING EXCEPT COVERING LETTER. THE APPLICANT WAS AGAIN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTS ON 18.09.2020 AND THE DATE WAS FIXED FOR 21.09.2020. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING :- 1. COPY OF MOA 2. BANK STATEMENTS 3. FEE STRUCTURE 4. SALARY DETAILS 5. DETAILS OF DONATIONS 6. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR LAST SIX YEARS 7. COPY OF ITRS 8. LAND OWNERSHIP DOCUMENTS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DOCUMENTS MENTIONED ABOVE, TH E NATURE OF ACTIVITIES AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSE INCURRED ON CHARITAB LE ACTIVITIES COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED. THE APPLICANT WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED I N THE FIXATION LETTER DATED 15.06.2020 TO SUBMIT THE SAME. 4. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN TH E PARA NO. 3,THERE IS NO WAY THE GENUINENESS OF ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY CA N BE CORROBORATED WITH THE STATED AIMS AND OBJECTS. ACCORDINGLY THE PRESENT AP PLICATION FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 IS HEREBY REJECTED. 8. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS PROVIDED BY THE LD. CIT(E), THEREFORE THE RE JECTION OF APPLICATION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 10. IN HER RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. CIT DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(E). 4 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, I T IS NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(E) HIMSELF MENTIONED THAT ON 18/09/2020 THE ASSESSEE WAS AS KED TO SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTS AND THE DATE WAS FIXED FOR 21/09/2020. HE PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON 22/09/2020 BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE DOCUME NTS. IN OUR OPINION THE TIME GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(E) WAS VERY SHORT AND NOT ADEQUATE, THEREF ORE IT MAY BE SAID THAT THE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED, UNHEARD AS PER THE MAXIM , AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM . 12. WE THEREFORE BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF NAT URAL JUSTICE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(E) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02/06/2021 ) SD/- SD/- .. .., (R.L. NEGI ) ( N.K. SAIN I) # $%/ JUDICIAL MEMBER / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 02/06/2021 (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE