Surat Sorathia Rami Mali Panch, Surat V. Income Tax Officer, (Head Quarter), Exemption, Ahmedabad

ITA 267/SRT/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7235 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRASENJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.267/SRT/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 SURAT SORATHIA RAMI MALI PANCH, 1/1401-1402, NEAR KSHETRAPAL, MAJURA BHAGAL ROAD, NANPURA, SURAT 395 001. [PAN: AABTS 2559 M] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(HQ) (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), AHMEDABAD DATED 21.09.2017 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2016-17. 2. GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: (I) REFUSAL TO GRANT REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ERRED IN REFUSING TO GRANT EXEMPTION U/S.12AA ON THE GROUNDS WHICH ARE NOT GERMANE AND WHICH ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. (II)MISCELLANEOUS: THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR VARY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.PCIT(EXEMPTIONS), AHMEDABAD IS A NON- ASSESSEE BY SHRI HIREN R. VEPARI CA DEPARTMENT BY SHRI PRASENJIT SINGH CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING 18.07.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.07.2019 2 SPEAKING ORDER, WITHOUT CONSIDERING ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL MAY BE SET-ASIDE TO THE LD.PCIT(EXEMPTIONS), AHMEDABAD TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR FILING THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM. 4. THE LD.DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION ON THE REQUEST OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.PCIT(EXEMPTIONS), AHMEDABAD DATED 21.09.2017 WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REQUEST MADE BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS GENUINE AND SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET-ASIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE LD.PCIT(EXEMPTIONS), AHMEDABAD TO DECIDE THE SAME FRESH AS PER LAW, AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PRODUCING NECESSARY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ITS CLAIM AS WELL AS GIVING FULL OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19-07-2019. SD/- SD/- (O.P. MEENA) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19/07/2019 / GANGADHARA RAO.S COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. PR.CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR / / TRUE COPY / / / / TRUE COPY / / ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, SURAT