Maha Academy of Pediatrics, Nashik V. CIT-I, Nashik

ITA 2104/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 72416 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VERMA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2104 AND 2105/PN/2012 MAHA ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, B-WING, THIRD FLOOR, RAM BAUGH SOCIETY, GANGAPUR ROAD, NASHIK-422 013 .. APPELLANT PAN NO.AACTM5769Q VS. CIT-I, NASHIK .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : SMT. M.S. VERMA DATE OF HEARING : 10-12-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-12-2013 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THE ABOVE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 30-09-11 AND 20-09-2012 R ESPECTIVELY OF THE CIT-I, NASHIK REJECTING REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, BOTH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON O RDER. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABOVE APPEALS ARE AS UNDER : GROUNDS IN ITA NO.2104/PN/2012 : ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW : 1. THE LEARNED HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- I IS WRONG IN REJECTING THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF MAHA ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, NASHIK BY MENTIONING THE REASON IN THE ORDER THAT THE OFFICE OF THE TRUST WAS CLOSED ON 29/09/2011 WHEN T HE INSPECTOR VISITED TO THE TRUST OFFICE. 2. THE LEARNED HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- I OUGHT TO HAVE SEND THE NOTICES AND INSPECTOR TO THE ADDRE SS CATEGORICALLY 2 MENTIONED AS ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE WAS MAHA ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, C/O. DR. SHYAMKANT CHAUDHARY, CHILDREN' S HOSPITAL, KAMATWADE ROAD, TRIMURTI CHAWK, CIDCO, NASHIK 42200 8, AS THE OFFICE TRUST (ASSOCIATION) IS NOT OPEN EVERY DAY BUT OCCASIONALLY. 3. THE LEARNED HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I FAILED TO GIVE A SUFFICIENT TIME FOR COMPLIANCE AS THE DAT E WAS GIVEN ON 29/09/2011 THAT IS ONE DAY BEFORE THE MANDATORY PER IOD OF DISPOSING THE APPLICATION U/S 12AA(2). (WITHIN SIX MONTHS FRO M THE DATE OF APPLICATION). 4. THE LEARNED HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- I, SHOULD HAVE GIVEN ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE TRUST BEFORE REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA BY CONTACTIN G THE CONCERNED PERSON. 5. THE APPELLANT TRUST IS ENTITLED FOR THE REGISTR ATION U/S. 12AA FROM THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11. GROUNDS IN ITA NO.2105/PN/2012 : ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW 1. THE LEARNED HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I IS WRONG IN REJECTING THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 1 2AA OF MAHA ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, NASHIK OF THE APPLICATION DA TED 30/03/2012 AS EARLIER APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION WAS REJECTED ON ACCOUNT OF NON ATTENDANCE BY THE CONCERNED PERSO N ON 30/09/2011. 2. THE LEARNED HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS COMMITTED A MISTAKE OF REJECTING THE APPLICATION FO R REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST ON TECHNICAL GROUND THAT HE CANNOT REVIEW HIS OWN ORDER OF REJECTION OF THE REGISTRATION OF EARLIER ON 30/0 9/2011. 3. THE LEARNED HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- I FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE EARLIER APPLICATION OF REJEC TING THE REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST WAS ONLY ON TECHNICAL GRO UNDS OF NON ATTENDANCE AND NOT ON MERITS. 4. THE LEARNED HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- I OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE APPLICATION ON THE BAS IS OF MERITS AND FULFILLING THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S.12AA AND GRANT THE REGISTRATION FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE ARGUING B OTH THE APPEALS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST FILED AN APPLICAT ION IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE INCOME TAX AC T. SINCE THE OFFICE OF THE TRUST WAS NOT OPEN FOR ALL THE DAYS T HE NOTICE SERVER WHO CAME TO SERVE THE NOTICE ON THE TRUST COULD NOT SER VE THE NOTICE AND 3 INTURN HAS SERVED THE SAME ON THE CA OF THE SAID TR UST SHRI SHIRISH KULKARNI ON 26-09-2011. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.C IT PASSED THE ORDER ON 30-09-2011 DENYING THE REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST U/S.12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 4. WHILE EXPLAINING THE APPEAL FILED IN ITA NO.2105 /PN/2012 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN TH E ASSESSEE AGAIN APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12AA THE CIT DID NOT E NTERTAIN THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD ALREADY PASSED AN ORDER D ENYING THE REGISTRATION AND THEREFORE PASSING OF THE ORDER U/S .12AA AGAIN WILL AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED EARLIER. HE S UBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE BEFORE THE CIT FO R GRANTING REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT. 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER WHILE SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT SUBMITTED THAT S HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT FOR GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES. WE FIND THE LD.CIT DENIED REGISTRATION U/S.12AA TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST SINCE NOBODY APPEARED BEFORE HIM ON THE DATE OF HEA RING, I.E. ON 26- 09-2011. FURTHER THE INSPECTOR IN THE INSTANT CASE WHO VISITED THE OFFICE OF THE TRUST HAD REPORTED IN HIS REPORT DATE D 29-09-2011 THAT THE OFFICE OF THE SAID TRUST REMAINS ALWAYS CLOSED. WE FIND IN THE INSTANT CASE THE CIT WAS CONSTRAINED TO PASS THE EXPARTE OR DER SINCE THE NOTICE COULD NOT BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND NONE APPEAR ED BEFORE HIM ON THE DATE OF HEARING. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF T HE FACTS OF THE CASE, 4 WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE G IVEN ONE FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE THE LD.CIT FOR GRANTING REGISTRATION U/S.12AA. WE, THEREFORE, RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORT UNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE. THE LD.CIT SHALL DEC IDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGL Y. GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.2104/PN/2012 ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. SINCE WE ARE RESTORING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AF TER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFO RE ITA NO.2105/PN/2012 BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. 8. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO.2104/PN/2012 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND ITA NO.2105/PN /2012 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF, I.E. ON 10 TH DECEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (R.K. PAN DA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED : 10 TH DECEMBER, 2013 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT-I, NASHIK 4. D.R. A BENCH, PUNE 5. GUARD FILE //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE