M/s. Madarsa Islamia Arabia Khadimul Uloom V & PO Baghonwali, Muzaffarnagar V. DCIT, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 2470/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97437 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V R SONBHADRA
• Assessee Lawyers: PREM PRAKASH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM ITA NO.2470/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 MADARSA ISLAMIA ARABIA KHADIMUL ULOOM, V&PO BAGHONWALI, C/O MASHKOOR ADMAD, ADVOCATE, 10, DR. SURESH MARKET, BHAGAT SINGH ROAD, MUZAFFARNAGAR. PAN: AABTM7748N VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARNAGAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PREM PRAKASH, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI V.R. SONBHADRA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 07.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.10.2015 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 13.2.2015 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2011-12. ITA NO.2470/DEL/2015 2 2. SHORN OF UNNECESSARY DETAILS, IT IS OBSERVED THA T THE AO WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT, NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS NOT REGISTERED U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT ITS IN COME WAS EXEMPT U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. NOT CONVINCED, THE AO DE NIED THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION AND COMPUTED TOTAL INCOME AT RS.45,28,101 /-. IN SUPPORT OF EXEMPTION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE FILED SOME ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO REFUSED TO ADMIT SUCH ADDITION AL EVIDENCE AND DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. TAKING INTO CONSI DERATION THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NO T ENTERTAINING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WAS NECESSARY FOR THE PUR POSE AND WHICH COULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE THE AO. IN OUR CONSIDERE D OPINION, THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD MEET ADEQUATELY IF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO. WE ORDER ACC ORDINGLY AND DIRECT HIM TO DE NOVO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT AS PER LAW AFTER ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ITA NO.2470/DEL/2015 3 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08.10.201 5. SD/- SD/- [SUCHITRA KAMBLE] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED,08 TH OCTOBER, 2015. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.