Brahmrishi Kheteshwar Janmsthali Charitable Trust, SANCHORE V. CIT-II, JODHPUR

ITA 268/JODH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 26823314 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-09-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P MEENA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 80G; 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JODHPUR BENCH : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 267 & 268 /JODH/2014 BRAHMRISHI KHETESHWAR JANMSTHALI CHARITABLE TRUST, VPO - BIJROL KHEDA, SANCHORE, DISTRICT JALORE VS. CIT - II, JODHPUR. PAN NO. A ABTB 6693 D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AMIT KOTHARI. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI O.P. MEENA - D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 11 / 0 9 /201 4 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 /0 9 /201 4 . O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, A.M TH E S E TWO APPEAL S BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 24 /0 7 /2013 OF L D . CIT - II , J ODHPUR . THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE BELATED BY 208 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THESE APPEALS STATING THEREIN AS UNDER: - 2 1. THE APPELLANT IS A CHARITABLE TRUST DULY REGISTERED WITH THE DEVASTHAN DEPARTMENT. 2. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM 10A AND 10G BEFORE THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, JODHPUR ON 31.1.2013. 3. THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, JODHPUR VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 24 TH JULY, 2013 REJECTED THE APPLICATION U/S 12A SUBMITTED BY THE APPLI CANT TRUST. THE SAID ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY SOME OF THE STAFF MEMBERS OF THE APPELLANT TRUST, AND WAS NEVER COMMUNICATED TO THE TRUSTEES. IT WAS ONLY DURING WHEN RECENTLY THE PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 WAS BEING TAKEN UP, AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPLICANT, IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRUSTEES THAT THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN ALREADY REJECTED BY THE ID. CIT - 2, JODHPUR. 4. THE TRUSTEES TOOK THE LEGAL ADVICE ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDE RS PASSED, AND ONLY THEREAFTER, IT CAME TO THEIR NOTICE THAT SEPARATE APPEALS ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE FILED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, JODHPUR U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. 5. THE TRUSTEES BECAME AWARE ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER WAS BEING RECEIVED FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 IN WHICH HUGE DEMAND WAS RAISED. 6. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DELAY SO OCCURRED IN SUBMISSION OF APPEAL WAS ON ACCOUNT OF BONAFIDE AND GENUINE REASONS AND THEREFORE DELAY SO OCCURRED MAY KINDLY BE CONDONED. 7. THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS BEING ALSO ANNEXED. IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE APPLICATION, GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST ALSO FURNISHED AN AFFIDAVIT . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING , LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTS OF THE AFORESAID 3 APPLICATION AND REQUESTED TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS AS THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE AND NO MALAFIDE INTENTION. 2 IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS , LEARNED D.R. STATED THAT THE DELAY MAY NOT BE CON D ONED . 3. AFTER CONSIDER I NG THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND MERIT IN THE APPL ICATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION, THEREFORE, THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND THE APPEALS ARE ADMITTED. 4. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THESE APPEALS READ AS UNDER: - 1. THE APPELLANT PRAY FOR CONDONATION FOR DE LAY IN SUBMISSION OF APPEAL. 2. THE LD. CIT - II, JODHPUR HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION U/S. 12A/80G OF THE ACT, SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM VIDE APPLICATION DATED 31/01/2013 . 3. THE APPELLANT PRAY THAT THE REGISTRATION U/S. 12A AND 80G MAY KINDLY BE DIRECT ED TO BE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT FROM THE DATE OF CREATING OF THE TRUST. 4. THE LD. CIT - II HAD GIVEN NO REASON FOR REJECTING THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LIBERTY TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, AND MODIFY ANY OF THE GR O UND OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE ITS HEARING BEFORE YOUR HONOUR. 5. FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS , IT IS CLEA R THAT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE REGISTRATION OF APPLICATIONS FILED FOR REGISTRATION 4 U/S. 12A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT IN SHORT) AND APPROVAL OF EXEMPTION U/S. 80G OF THE ACT . 6 . FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPLICATIONS IN FORM - 10A & 10G ON 31/01/2013 FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 12A & EXEMPTION U/S. 80G OF THE ACT . THE LD. CIT FORWARDED THE APPLICATIONS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO STATED THA T THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST WERE ENGAGED IN THE PROCESS OF ELECTION OF OFFICE BEARERS OF THE TRUST AND OLD TRUST OFFICE BEARERS WERE NOT ABLE TO PROCEED FURTHER . THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE JOINT COMMISSION ER OF INCOME - TAX , RANGE - 3 DID NOT RECOMMEND THE REGISTRATION U/S. 12A & EXEMPTION U/S. 80G OF THE ACT AND THE LD. CIT REJECTED THE ABOVE SAID APPLICATIONS. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 7 . LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A DUE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE ACT AND THE APPROVAL U/S. 80G OF THE ACT . 5 8 . L EARNED CIT D.R. , IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 9 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL REQUESTED TO THE LD. CIT FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE WHEN IT WAS FIXED FOR HEARING VIDE LETTER DATED 15/07/2013 AS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, BUT THE LD. CIT DID NOT OBLIGE AND REJECTED THE APPLICATIONS MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE . IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD AS PER THE MAXIM OF AUDI ALTERAM P E RT AM . WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DIRECT THE LD. CIT TO DECIDE THE ISSUES AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 10 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL S ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ( ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11 TH SEPTEMBER , 201 4) . S D/ - SD/ - ( HARI OM MARATHA ) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 11 TH SEPTEMBER , 201 4 . VR/ - 6 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD. CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , ITAT, JODHPUR .