Arihant Foundation, Lucknow V. Commissioner of Income tax-1, Lucknow

ITA 264/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3301 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-06-2013
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A : LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO S . 264 & 265 /LKW/ 2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 M/S ARIHANT FOUNDATION, VS. C.I.T. - I, 401 UJALA APARTMENT, LUCKNOW. SECTOR - 20, INDIRA NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:AADTA1488P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 05 /0 6 /201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :05/06/2013 OR DER PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: TH ESE APPEAL S ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT - I, LUCKNOW PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 ON VARIOUS COMMON GROUNDS IN BOTH THE APPEALS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT APPELLANT HAD FILED APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THAT HERE IT WILL NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT RECOMMENDED THE CASE OF 2 APPELLANT FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A BY OBSERVING THE FOLLOWING FACTS; (I) THAT CERTAIN NON - SPECIFIC ADDRESSES WERE GIVEN WHERE CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES WERE CONDUCTED, (II) THAT I.T.I HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA WHERE THE ACTIVITIES WERE PURPORTEDLY CONDUCTED HAD NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE TRUST, (III) THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH HAV E BEEN FILED SHOW THAT IT HAS BEEN MORE OR LESS TAKEN IN A ROOM. 3. THAT ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE REPORT SUBMITTED BY AO, THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER REJECTED THE CASE OF APPELLANT FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE I.T. ACT,1961. 4. THAT APPELLANT FILED ITS REPLY DT.20.3.2012 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER, THEREBY ENCLOSING THE LIST OF ADDRESSES WHERE CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES WERE CONDUCTED. 5. THAT THEREAFTER, THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT AT TH E SAID ADDRESSES AND VIDE REPORT DATED 22.3.2012 AO HAD NOT RECOMMENDED THE APPELLANTS' CASE FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ; ( I ) THAT IN ALMOST ALL THE CASES THE PERSONS AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES HAVE NOT HEARD OF ARIHANT FOUNDATION. ( II ) THAT IN THE CASE OF VARDHMAN INTER COLLEGE, INDIRA NAGAR LUCKNOW, THOUGH THE MANAGER STATED THAT THE CAMP WAS HELD BUT HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE WHY THE CAMP WAS HELD. 6. THAT WITH THE PERUSAL OF AO'S SUBMISSION AS AFORESAID, PRIMA F A CIE IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT I.T.I HAD VISITED ONLY VARDHMAN INTER COLLEGE, INDIRA NAGAR, LUCKNOW, WHERE THE MANAGER OF THE COLLEGE HAD ADMITTED THAT THE CAMP WAS HELD, BUT HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT. 3 7. THAT AFORESAID REPORT OF AO IS ITSELF CONTRADICTORY AS IN THE FIRST LINE IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT I.T.I VISITED SOME OF THE ADDRESSES AND IN THE SECOND LINE IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT I.T.I HAD REPORTED THAT IN ALMOST ALL THE CASES THE PERSONS AT THE GIV EN ADDRESS HAVE NEVER HEARD OF ARIHANT FOUNDATION. 8. THAT PRIMA FACIE IT IS CLEAR WITH THE PERUSAL OF AFORESAID AO'S REPORT THAT I.T.I HAD NOT VISITED ANY OTHER PLACES EXCEPT THE VARDHMAN INTER COLLEGE OF INDIRA NAGAR, LUCKNOW, THEREBY I.T.I WAS UNABLE T O MENTION THE SPECIFIC NAME OF PERSONS AND PLACES WHERE HE HAD VISITED. 9. THAT HERE IT WILL BE PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE ENTIRE CASE OF APPELLANT IS DEPEND UPON THE REPORT OF I.T.I . 10. THAT THE CONFIRMATION GIVEN BY THE MANAGER OF VARDHMAN INTER COLLEGE, INDIRA NAGAR, LUCKNOW CLEARLY PROVES THE GENUINENESS OF ACTIVITIES OF THE ORGANIZATION. 11. THAT AFORESAID ACT OF RESPONDENTS OF REJECTING THE APPELLANTS' CASE FOR REGISTRATION OF 12A UNDER INCOME TAX ACT,1961 ON THE BASIS OF MALA FIDE INT ENTION AND UNLAWFUL REPORT OF AO IS NOTHING BUT AMOUNTS TO PUNISHMENT. 12. THAT AFORESAID ACT OF RESPONDENTS ARE AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. TH ESE APPEAL S CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 05/06/2013 BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM PERUSAL OF RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED POST BUT RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED WITH THE REMARK THAT THE ADDRESSEE IS NOT AVAILABLE. THE OFFICE O F THE TRIBUNAL HAD MADE ITS SINCERE EFFORTS TO GET THE NOTICE SERVED BUT FAILED TO GET IT SERVED. TH IS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE 4 ASSESSEE AND IT IS H IS DUTY TO REMAIN VIGILANT WITH REGARD TO THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO PROCEED EX - PARTE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUE WAS HEARD. 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF CIT ON IMPUGNED ISSUES AND FIND THAT HE HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL AND IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE. SINCE NO INFIRMITY IS FOUND THEREIN , W E CONFIRM HIS ORDER. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05 /06/2013 ) SD/. SD/. ( PRAMOD KUMAR) ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 0 6 /06/2013 *SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO THE: 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT (A) 4. CIT 5. DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR