The Daughters of Charity of Vincent De Paul society, Karaikudi V. ITO, Trichy

ITA 217/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9192 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.217/MDS/2016 THE DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY, SHANTHI RANI NILAYAM, SOMANATHAPURAM COLONY, KALLAL, KARAIKUDI-623 305. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, TRICHY. PAN: AADAT9057G ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. G.BASKAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A.B.KOLI, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 24 TH MARCH2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 6 TH JUNE, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI DATED 30.09.2015 IN F.NO. CIT(E)- 2(1228)/2014-15 DENYING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT. 2. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY LI MITATION OF 32 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT EX PLAINING THE REASON THAT THE OFFICE BEARERS OF THE SOCIETY HAD T O DISCUSS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(E) WITH THEIR 2 ITA NO.217/MDS/2016 CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND ADVOCATE WHICH TOOK SOME T IME AND HENCE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. IT WAS TH EREFORE PRAYED THAT THE DELAY MAY BE CONDONED. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CA USE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY CO NDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND ADMIT THE SAME FOR A DJUDICATION. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THREE GROUNDS IN ITS APP EAL, HOWEVER THE CRUXES OF THE ISSUES ARE AS FOLLOWS:- I) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER WITHOU T PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO TH E ASSESSEE WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NAT URAL JUSTICE. II) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SEC TION 12AA OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT. 3 ITA NO.217/MDS/2016 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESE NTATIVE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) HAS PASSED EX-PARTE ORDER W ITHOUT AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) IN ORDER TO PRESENT HIS CAS E BEFORE HIM WITH NECESSARY RECORDS. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE L EARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND PLEADED THAT THE ORDE R OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) MAY BE CONFIRMED. 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES AND PERUSING THE ORD ER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), IT IS APPARENT THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (EXEMPTIONS) HAS PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER. IT IS AL SO REVEALED FROM HIS ORDER THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH CERTAIN CLARIFICATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS 4 ITA NO.217/MDS/2016 POINTED OUT VIDE LETTER DATED 06.08.2015, THE ASSE SSEE SOCIETY FAILED TO FURNISH THE SAME. FURTHER, ON THE DATE OF HEARING VIZ. 14.09.2015 WHICH WAS DULY INTIMATED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 11.08.2015, THE ASSESSEE OR ITS REPRESENTATIVE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS). THEREFORE , THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO REJECT THE APPLICATION FOR REGI STRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE L EARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FIL E OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) FOR DENOVO CONSIDERATION AND THEREBY GRANT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS CASE BEF ORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION). W E ALSO CAUTION THE ASSESSEE THAT IF IT FAILS TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) IN THE PROCEEDINGS BY SEEKING UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENTS THE N THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) SHA LL BE 5 ITA NO.217/MDS/2016 AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS AS PER LAW AN D MERIT BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH JUNE, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) ! # / JUDICIAL MEMBER # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, & /DATED 6 TH JUNE , 2016 SOMU !() *) /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. + () /CIT(A) 4. + /CIT 5. ) !!/ /DR 6. 2 /GF