Vishnu Educational & Charitable Trust, CHENNAI V. ITO, Salem

ITA 25/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7574 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS VIJAYALAKSHMICIT
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , ! . ' #$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G.PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.25 /MDS./2015 M/S. VISHNU EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST , 2/12, RAJIV NAGAR, TIRUCHENGODE, NAMAKKAL 637 211. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD II(1), SALEM. PAN AABTV 6263 H ( %& / APPELLANT ) ( '(%& / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MR.S.SRIDHAR,ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : MRS.VIJAYALAKSHMI,CIT, D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 10.03.2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.03.2016 ) / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SALEM DA TED 30.07.2014. ITA NO.25/MDS/2015 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAL EM DATED 30.07.2014 IN C.NO.9755(56)/2013-2014/CIT/SLM IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS, AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT ERRED IN REJECTING THE PLEA FOR GRANTING OF REGISTRATION U/S I2AA OF THE ACT ON RECORDING THE F INDINGS IN PARA 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT ASSIGNING P ROPER REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION. - 3. THE CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO IN PARA 3 WAS NOT PUT TO THE APPELLANT FOR REBUTTAL AND OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATE D THAT NON FURNISHING OF THE SAID REPORT BEFORE PASSING TH E IMPUGNED ORDER WAS BAD IN LAW. 4. THE CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IN ANY EVENT T HE SCOPE OF POWERS VESTED BY THE STATUTE WAS LIMITED AND NARROW AND OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT HAVING NOT EXAMINED THE OBJECTS MENTIONED IN THE TRUST DEED WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT, REJECTION O F THE PLEA FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION WAS WRONG, ERRONEOUS, UNJ USTIFIED, INCORRECT AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 5. THE CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT FURTHER IN ANY EVENT THE ACTIVITIES WERE PURSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJE CTS MENTIONED IN THE TRUST DEED EXECUTED ON 08.12.2008 AND OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE PLEA FOR GRANT O F ITA NO.25/MDS/2015 3 REGISTRATION RETROSPECTIVELY WAS VALID IN LAW IN SU CH CIRCUMSTANCES. 6. THE CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS NO P ROPER OPPORTUNITY GIVEN BEFORE THE PASSING OF THE IMPUGNE D ORDER AND ANY ORDER PASSED IN VIOLATION OF THE PRIN CIPLES NATURAL JUSTICE WOULD BE NULLITY IN LAW. 7. THE CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ORDER REJ ECTING THE PLEA FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT WAS PASSE D OUT OF TIME, INVALID, PASSED WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND N OT SUSTAINABLE BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 3. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 101 DAYS FOR FILING THE AP PEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT THE REASON FOR SUCH DEL AY IS BEYOND HIS CONTROL AND IT WAS NOT WILLFUL. FURTHER IT WAS ST ATED THAT THE DELAY HAS TO BE CONDONED. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONDONATI ON PETITION AND SATISFIED WITH THE REASON ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR FILING THE APPEAL WITH 101 DAYS. THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND AP PEAL IS ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE FILED APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT IN FORM -10A ON 31.01.2014. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT, ONE MR.N.NAR ASIMHAN C.A APPEARED BEFORE THE CIT WITHOUT POWER OF ATTORNEY. ACCORDING TO THE CIT, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE A PPLICATION AND HE ITA NO.25/MDS/2015 4 BASED HIS CONCLUSION ON THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NON- GRANTING THE REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION, HE HAS TO EXAMINE THE RECORDS TO SATISFY ABOUT THE GENUINE NESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST AND ALSO OBJECTS OF THE TRU ST. WITHOUT MAKING ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY, HE REJECTED THE REGISTRATI ON U/S.12AA OF THE ACT ON THE REASON THAT THE C.A APPEARED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING NO AUTHORITY TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM. IN OUR OP INION, THE ISSUE IS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE AFRESH AFTER CALLING FOR REQUIS ITE DETAILS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS REMITTED TO TH E FILE OF LD.CIT FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ONTHURSDAY , THE 24 TH OF MARCH,2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) (G.PAVAN KUMAR) ( ( ! ' ) ) # CHANDRA POOJARI $% JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 24 TH MARCH, 2016. K S SUNDARAM. &'%%()*%+* /COPY TO: % 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. % ,%#$ /CIT(A) 4. % , /CIT 5. *-. %((/0 /DR 6. .12%3 /GF