Smt. Raj Rani Bansal, Bathinda V. The Commissioner of Income tax, Bathinda

ITA 212/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73217 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 212(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: NIL PAN: AALTS3792G SMT. RAJ RANI BANSAL CHARITABLE VS. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TRUST, ABOHAR TAX, BATHINDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. P.N. ARORA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING: 11.02.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13.02.2014 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.03.2013 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX, BATHINDA. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHIN DA, HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER AND REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR REG ISTRATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 12A(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE 2 I.T.A. NO. 212(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: NIL ACT). HE REQUESTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASID E TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA, TO PASS SPEAKING ORDER IN DISPUTE. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED DR HAS NOT RAISED ANY S ERIOUS OBJECTION ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS REPRO DUCED AS UNDER: ORDER U/S 12AA OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1991 APPLICATION U/S 12A(1) OF INCOME TAX, 1961 IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN FILED BY THE APPLICANT IN FORM 10A ON 10.09.2012, THE CAS E WAS PROCESSED AND FIXED FOR HEARING ON 20.02.2013 AND 22.03.2013. ON THE DATE SH. SHAM LAL BANSAL, ADVOCATE ATTENDED AND FILED WRITTE N REPLY. THE APPLICANT HAD ALSO FILED AN APPLICATION U/S 12A (1) IN THIS CASE ON 26.03.2012 WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DISMISSED VIDE TH IS OFFICE ORDER NO. CIT/BTI/ITO(T)/12-A/52/2012-13/1786 DATED 05.09 .2012 AS THERE WAS NO RECEIPT DURING THE YEAR AND ADMITTEDLY THE W ORK OF CHARITABLE NATURE HAD ALSO NOT STARTED AND THE APPLICATION FIL ED FOR REGISTRATION WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT. NOW THE A.O. AS WELL AS RANGE HEAD HAS NOT RECOMMEN DED THIS CASE FOR REGISTRATION STATING THEREIN THAT THE APPLICANT HAS FILED APPLICANT WITHIN FIVE DAYS FROM THE REJECTION OF EARLIER APPL ICATION AND IN SUCH A SHORT PERIOD OF FIVE DAYS IN BETWEEN THE REJECTION AND FRESH APPLICATION, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER A NY CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES WERE UNDERTAKEN AND FURTHER WHETHER THE SAID ACTIVI TIES WERE GENUINE. IN VIEW OF DECISION OF THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T. IN CASE OF M/S SIDANA EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE SOCIETY, AMRITSAR VS. CIT-I I, AMRITSAR IN ITA NO. 431 (ASR)/2009 DATED 18.12.2009, THE REGISTRATI ON CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO THE APPLICANT AND HENCE THE APPLICATION OF SMT. RAJ RANI 3 I.T.A. NO. 212(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: NIL BANSAL CHARITABLE TRUST, 730 SHYAM KUNJ, ST. NO. 1- B, 2 ND CHOWK, ABOHAR FILED FOR REGISTRATION IS HEREBY REJECTED. 5. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED ORDER , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS A NON-SPEAKING ONE; THEREFORE THE SAME IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA, TO PASS A SPE AKING ORDER DESCRIBING THE FATE OF EARLIER APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 12A(1) OF THE ACT ON 26.03.2012 WHICH WAS D ISMISSED ON 05.09.2012. COMPLETE DETAILS OF EARLIER ORDER SHOUL D BE MENTIONED IN THE ORDER WHICH ARE NOT DISCERNIBLE FROM THE IMPUGNED O RDER DATED 25.03.2013. IT SHOULD ALSO BE MENTIONED THE REASON THAT WHY THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR REGISTRATIO N AND THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT. 6. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEV EL OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DIRECT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA, TO PASS A SPE AKING ORDER ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE UNDER THE LAW, AFTER AFFORDING ADE QUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4 I.T.A. NO. 212(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: NIL 7. IN THE RESULT, THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: SMT. RAJ RANI BANSAL CHARITABLE TRUS T, ABOHAR 2. CIT, BATHINDA 3. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.