Raghuvanshi Charitable Trust, New Delhi V. DIT(E), New Delhi

ITA 2173/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3695 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BANITA DEVI NAROEM
• Keywords: Charitable institution

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F ; NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI, JM AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, A M I.T.A. NO.2173/DEL OF 2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: - RAGHUVANSHI CHARITABLE TRUST DIRECTOR OF INCOM E-TAX(E) , 105, RAKESH DEEP, 11, COMMERCIAL VS NEW DEL HI. COMPLEX, GULMOHAR ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI RANJAN CHOPRA RESPONDENT BY: SMT. BANITA DEVI NAROEM, SR. DR ORDER PER C.L. SETHI, JM THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.3.2010 PASSED U/S 80G(5)(VI) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) RE AD WITH RULE 11AA OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR O F INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), DELHI. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE CAREFULL Y GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF ORDER PASSED BY DIT(E), WE FIND THAT THE DIT(E) HAS PASSED THIS ORDER EX PARTE INASMUCH AS A PERIOD OF 51 DAYS HAD ALREADY ELAPSED TILL THE LAST DATE OF HEARING FIXED ON 8.2.2010 WHEN THE 2 ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR, AND FINDING NO OTHER ALT ERNATIVE, THE DIT(E) DECIDED THE ISSUE EX PARTE. ON PERUSAL OF IMPUGNED ORDER, WE FURTHER FIND THAT DIRECTOR ISSUED A LETTER DATED 25.1.2010 REQUE STING THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND EXPLANATIONS ON OR BEF ORE 5.2.2010. THE ASSESSEE THEN FILED ITS REPLY DATED 4.2.2010 AND SU BMITTED THE SAME IN DAK OF THE OFFICE ON 5.2.2010. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE REQUIRED DETAILS WERE FURNISHED TO THE DIT(E) BUT NO PERSONA L HEARING HAD TAKEN PLACE NOR ALL THE DETAILS WERE EXAMINED PROPERLY. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND HAVING NOTED THE FACT THAT DIT(E) HAD DEC IDED THE ISSUE EX PARTE WITHOUT GIVING ANY FURTHER TIME TO THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LET THIS MATTER BE FRESHLY EXAMINED BY TH E DIT(E) AFTER PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF PERSONAL HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, DU RING THE COURSE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN ITS CASE WITH REFERENCE TO THE VARIOUS DETAILS OR DOCUMENTS OR ACCOUNTS FURNISHED BY THE A SSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF DIT(E) FOR H IS FRESH ADJUDICATION, AFTER EXAMINING AND VERIFYING EACH AND EVERY DETAIL OR DO CUMENT OR EXPLANATION OR ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND AFTER GI VING AN OPPORTUNITY OF PERSONAL HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DO HEREBY DIR ECT THE ASSESSEE NOT TO INDULGE IN DILATORY TACTICS BY SEEKING UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENTS BUT TO 3 COOPERATE WITH THE DIT(E) TO DISPOSE THE MATTER AT THE EARLIEST AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW CONTAINED IN THAT BEHALF. WE ORDE R ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 8 TH JULY, 2010 IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE HEARING WAS OVER. (A.K. GARODIA) (C.L. SETHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 8 TH JULY, 2010 VIJAY COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) NEW DELHI. 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR