KAYASTHA HITKARNI SABHA, Jaipur V. CIT-II, Jaipur

ITA 264/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5469 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA GOD
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV SOGANI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay
• Section: 80G; 12A

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF; D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 264/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : ............... KAYASTHA HITKARI SABHA, E-65, CHITRANJAN MARG, C- SCHEME, JAIPUR-302005. CUKE VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAAAK 0405 E VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJIV SOGANI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI NARENDRA GOD (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 08/01/2016 MN ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12/02/2016 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER T.R. MEENA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT-II, JAIPUR DATED 27/11/2013 U/S 80G OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF THE APPEAL I S AS UNDER:- 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT HAS ERRED IN NOT GRANTING THE APPROVAL U/ S 80G(5)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ACTION OF ITA NO. 264/JP/2014 KAYASTHA HITKARI SABHA VS. CIT 2 THE LD. CIT IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DIRECTING THE LD CIT TO GRANT THE APPROVAL U/S 80G( 5)(VI) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THE PRESENT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FILED AFTER DELAY OF 64 DAYS AND IN THIS REGARD APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AL ONGWITH AFFIDAVIT HAS ALSO BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN DELAY FILING OF THE APPEALS. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE CONDONATION APPLICATION AND REASONS SUBMITTE D BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THE REASONS VALID AND CONDONE THE DELAY. 3. THE SOLE GROUND OF THE APPEAL IS AGAINST NOT GRAN TING REGISTRATION U/S 80G BY THE LD CIT-II, JAIPUR. THE LD CIT HAS OBSE RVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION IN FORM NO. 10G SEEKI NG EXEMPTION U/S 80G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT ON 02/08/2013. A REPORT ON AP PLICATION FILED BY THE APPLICANT SOCIETY WAS SOUGHT AND OBTAINED FROM THE A CIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR WHICH HAS BEEN FORWARDED BY THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-5, JAI PUR VIDE LETTER NO. 1044 DATED 08/11/2013. HE FURTHER PROVIDED OPPO RTUNITY TO THE APPLICANT TRUST VIDE LETTER DATED 12/09/2013 TO FURN ISH ALL THE DETAILS/INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS BUT NO REPLY/INFORMAT ION WAS FURNISHED. ONE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY THE LD CIT-II, JAIPUR VIDE LETTER DATED 21/10/2013 TO FURNISH REQUIRED DETAILS/INFORM ATION/DOCUMENT BUT AGAIN NO INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS WAS FURNISHED. IN ABS ENCE OF THE ITA NO. 264/JP/2014 KAYASTHA HITKARI SABHA VS. CIT 3 REQUIRED INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER COULD NOT VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE OBJECTS OF THE APPLICANT SOC IETY, THEREFORE, HE HAS NOT RECOMMENDED EXEMPTION U/S 80G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT . IN THE EVENT AND IN ABSENCE OF DETAILS ETC. ON RECORD, THE GENUINENE SS OF THE STATED OBJECTIVE IS NEITHER DISCERNABLE NOR ESTABLISHED. TH US, HE REJECTED THE APPLICATION U/S 80G OF THE ACT. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. IT IS SU BMITTED BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED REQU ISITE INFORMATION BEFORE THE LD ACIT-CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR. HE FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT SOCIETY HAS REGISTRATION U/S 12A AND WAS G RANTED APPROVAL U/S 80G VIDE CIT OFFICE LETTER NO. 291/31/2005-06/2534 F OR THE PERIOD FROM 18/06/2001 TO 31/03/2008. IT IS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE LD CIT HAS NOT CONSIDERED ALL THE PARTICULARS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR BEFORE REJECTING 80G APPLICATION. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT-II, JAIPUR PASSED U/S 80G O F THE ACT. 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD CIR DR HAS VEHEMENTLY OPPO SED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD NOT ESTABLISHED THE GENUINENESS OF THE OBJECT OF THE TRU ST BEFORE THE LD CIT. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DESER VED TO BE REJECTED. ITA NO. 264/JP/2014 KAYASTHA HITKARI SABHA VS. CIT 4 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE LD CIT-II, JAIPUR HAS PROVIDED ONLY ONE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPLICANT TRUST TO FILE THE REQUIRED DETAILS. THE BROTHER IN LAW OF THE TREASURER HAD DIED ON 10/11/2013, SO PROPER COMPLIANCE COULD NOT BE MADE BY THE APPELLAN T TRUST. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER O F THE LD CIT-II, JAIPUR TO HIM FOR DE NOVO. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO COOPER ATE WITH THE LD CIT-II, JAIPUR AND FURNISH ALL THE REQUIRED DETAILS BEFORE HIM. THE LD CIT-II, JAIPUR IS ALSO DIRECTED TO PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT TRUST AND TAKE DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/02/2016. SD/- SD/- YFYR DQEKJ VH-VKJ-EHUK (LALIET KUMAR) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 12 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- KAYASTHA HITKARI SABHA, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- CIT, JAIPUR-II, JAIPUR. ITA NO. 264/JP/2014 KAYASTHA HITKARI SABHA VS. CIT 5 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 264/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR