The Oxford Educational & Charitable Society, V. The Commissioner of Income tax, Bathinda

ITA 26/ASR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 2620914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-01-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 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. 26(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: NIL PAN: AABTT6670Q THE OXFORD EDUCATIONAL & VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME CHARITABLE SOCIETY, KOTKAPURA TAX, BATHINDA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SH. P.N. ARORA, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY: SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 09.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.01.2014 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2010 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT, BATHINDA, UN DER SECTION 12AA(1)(B)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PA SSED BY LEARNED CIT, BATHINDA, AND THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOK AND OUR FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER: 2 I.T.A. NO. 26(ASR)/2011 I. THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY FILED AN APPLICATION FOR REGIS TRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT ON 28.05.2010. LEARNED CIT, BATHINDA, CALLED THE ASSESSEE TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF TH E ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST ON 01.07.2010 ALONG WITH COMPLETE SE T OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FOR THE LAST T HREE YEARS BUT NONE ATTENDED IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE. LEARN ED CIT, BATHINDA, RE-FIXED THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 02.08.20 10 AND AGAIN NONE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE SAID DATE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN RE-FIXED FOR HEARING ON 08.10.20 10 BUT ON THE SAID DATE, SH. AVANTA KUMAR JAIN, ADVOCATE, ATTENDE D THE PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT AND THE CASE OF WAS ADJOURNED FOR 18.10.2010. AGAIN NONE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS ON 18.10.2010 AND THE CASE WAS AGAI N FIXED FOR HEARING ON 18.11.2010. ON 18.11.2010, AGAIN NONE AP PEARED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT, BATHINDA, AND DUE TO NON-COOPERATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR LEARNED CIT , BATHINDA, TO VERIFY THE SOURCE OF INCOME AND ITS APPLICATION. II. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM, NEITHER ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED 3 I.T.A. NO. 26(ASR)/2011 REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE HIM NOR SATISFIED LE ARNED CIT, BATHINDA, ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES O F THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AND EVEN DID NOT JOIN IN THE INQUIRY, W HICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEARNED CIT, BATHINDA, ON TH E GENUINENESS OF THE OBJECTIVES AS WELL ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST. III. ON THE REPORT OF ASSESSING OFFICER, LEARNED CIT, B ATHINDA, NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ASKED THE ASSESSEE-S OCIETY TO PRODUCE SOME OF THE DONORS FOR THE VERIFICATION OF DONATIONS MADE BY THEM BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCED THE DON ORS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. PERUSAL OF THE LIST OF DONATIONS R ECEIVED FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC, IT IS NOTICED THAT ALL THE DONATIO NS AMOUNTING TO RS. 33,71,800/- WERE RECEIVED ONLY IN SINGLE MONTH I.E. JUNE, 2009 AND ALSO ALL THE DONATIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN CASH E XCEPT IN SOME CASES WHERE THESE HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH DRAFTS FOR 21,000/-. THE GENUINENESS OF THESE DONORS CANNOT BE ASCERTAIN ED WITHOUT THEIR EXAMINATION/PRODUCTION BEFORE LEARNED CIT, BA THINDA, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE AMOUNT INTRODUCED AS DONATIONS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST FROM THE ACTIVITIES THAT ARE NOT CHA RITABLE AND ARE IN 4 I.T.A. NO. 26(ASR)/2011 THE NATURE OF TRADE, BUSINESS OR COMMERCE. THE LEAR NED CIT, BATHINDA, IS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE WORKS DONE B Y THE ASSESSEE- SOCIETY ARE NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE MAIN AIMS A ND OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY. IV. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAI NED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LEARNED CIT, BATHINDA, HAS AFF ORDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY TO ATTEND THE P ROCEEDINGS AND PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDING CHARITAB LE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY IT BUT THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY FAILED TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS AND PRODUCE THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE AS R EQUIRED BY LEARNED CIT, BATHINDA. V. KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, THE COMMISSIONER, ON RECEIPT OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTR ATION OF A TRUST OR INSTITUTION SHALL CALL FOR SUCH DOCUMENTS OR INF ORMATION FROM THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AS HE THINKS NECESSARY IN ORDE R TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AND MAY ALSO MAKE SUCH INQUIRIES AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSA RY. AFTER SATISFYING HIMSELF ABOUT THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST O R INSTITUTION AND THE GENUINENESS OF ITS ACTIVITIES, HE SHALL PASS AN ORDER IN WRITING 5 I.T.A. NO. 26(ASR)/2011 REGISTERING THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AND IF HE IS N OT SATISFIED THEN HE CAN PASS AN ORDER IN WRITING REFUSING TO REGISTER T HE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPLICANT-SOCIETY. VI. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, AS MENTIONED ABOVE, LEARN ED CIT, BATHINDA, HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE A SSESSEE FOR PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE AS REQUIRED BY LEARNED CIT, BATHINDA, HOW THE AUTHORITY CAN SATISF Y HIMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST OR I NSTITUTION. IT IS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF LEARNED CIT, BATHINDA, TO CAL L FOR ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION FROM THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AS HE THINKS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST OR INSTI TUTION. IT IS ALSO WITHIN THE POWER OF LEARNED CIT, BATHINDA, TO MAKE ANY TYPE OF INQUIRY AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY ON THE SUBJECT TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUS T BEFORE ISSUING REGISTRATION TO THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION. 6 I.T.A. NO. 26(ASR)/2011 VII. WE HOLD THAT MERELY FILING AN APPLICATION FOR REGIS TRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT AND SHOWING IN WRITING THAT THE AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST ARE CHARITABLE, ARE N OT SUFFICIENT FOR GRANTING REGISTRATION TO THE SOCIETY UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT UNTIL AND UNLESS THE AUTHORITY, WHO GRANTS THE REGI STRATION, SATISFIES HIMSELF THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST OR INSTITU TION ARE GENUINE OR NOT. TO SATISFY HIMSELF HE CAN MAKE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE DEEM NECESSARY. THERE IS NO BAR UNDER ANY PROVISION OF L AW THAT THE AUTHORITY CANNOT MAKE AN INQUIRY ABOUT THE GENUINEN ESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY TRUST OR INSTITUTION. LIK E THE CASE ON HAND, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY REMAIN NON-COOPERATIV E AND HAS NOT FILED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, AS REQUIRED BY LEAR NED CIT, BATHINDA. THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE CASE-LAWS ARE NOT H ELPFUL TO THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE CASE-LAWS RELIED UPON BY HIM A RE NOT IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. VIII. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2010 PASSED UNDER SECTION 12AA(1)(B)(II) OF THE ACT BY LEARNED CIT, BATHINDA, IS A WELL 7 I.T.A. NO. 26(ASR)/2011 REASONED ORDER AND DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. ACCORDING LY, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2010 AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH JANUARY, 2014 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16 TH JANUARY, 2014 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: THE OXFORD EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE SOCIETY, KOTKAPURA 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.