M/s Tumkur District Farmers/ Milk Producers and Employees of Milk Producers Co-operative Societies General Welfare Trust , Tumkur V. Commissioner of Income Tax (exemption) , Bangalore

ITA 2726/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7150 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C H SUNDAR RAO C IT DR I
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMASUBRAMANIYAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 80G; 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A ND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 2726 & 2729 /BANG/201 7 M/S. TUMKUR DISTRICT FARMERS / MILK PRODUCERS AND EMPLOYEES OF MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES GENERAL WELFARE TRUST, N H 206, B H ROAD, MALLASANDRA, TUMKUR 572 107. VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAMASUBRAMANIYAN, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI C.H. SUNDAR RAO, CIT (DR - I) DATE OF HEARING : 0 2 .01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 . 01 .201 9 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(E), BANGALORE BOTH DATED 22.09.2017 PASSED BY HIM U/S. 12AA AND SECTION 80G OF IT ACT. BOTH THES E APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS C OMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 27 29/BANG/2017 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX (EXEMPTION), IN SO FAR IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE APPELLANT IS BAD AND ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX ITA NOS. 2726 & 2729/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 4 (EXEMPTION) IN DENYING THE REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE ACT AND IS VIOLATIVE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS LIABL E TO BE QUASHED. 3. THAT THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION) THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED THE IN FORMATION AND DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE D EPARTMENT IS PERVERSE AS THE APPELLANT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY NOTIC E AT ALL. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXE MPTION) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BY ISSUING A NOTICE . EACH OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO O NE ANOTHER AND THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE OF THE HON'BLE INCOME TA X APPELLANT TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE TO ADD, DELETE, MODIFY, AMEND O R OTHERWISE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OR DURING THE HEA RING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 27 26/BANG/2017 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX (EXEMPTION), IN SO FAR IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE APPELLANT IS BAD AND ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME- TAX(EXEMPTION) IN DENYING THE RECOGNITION U/S 80G O F THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 1 2A IS REJECTED. 3. THAT THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(EXEMPTION) THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED THE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE D EPARTMENT IS PERVERSE AS THE APPELLANT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY NOTIC E AT ALL. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXE MPTION)OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BY ISSUING A NOTICE . EACH OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO O NE ANOTHER AND THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE OF THE HON'BLE INCOME TA X APPELLANT TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE TO ADD, DELETE, MODIFY, AMEND O R OTHERWISE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OR DURING THE HEA RING OF THE APPEAL. 4. FIRST WE DECIDE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF NON-GRANTING OF REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF IT ACT. IN THIS REGAR D, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT IN THE VERY FIRST PARA OF IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS NOTED BY CIT(E) THAT LETTER DATED 11.09.2017 WAS ISSUED BY H IS OFFICE CALLING FOR CERTAIN DETAILS / CLARIFICATIONS. HE SUBMITTED THA T THIS LETTER ISSUED BY CIT(E) ITA NOS. 2726 & 2729/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 4 ON 11.09.2017 WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 21.09 .2017 AND BEFORE THE ASSESSEE COULD FILE THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS, THE IMP UGNED ORDER WAS PASSED BY CIT(E) ON 22.09.2017. HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(E ) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(E). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN VI EW OF THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE FEEL IT PROPER TO RESTORE BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF CIT(E) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED BY CIT (E) TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION, NO ADJUDICATION OR DECISION IS CALLED FOR ON MERIT OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF IT A CT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. NOW WE TAKE UP THE SECOND APPEAL IN RESPECT OF N ON-GRANTING OF RECOGNITION U/S. 80G OF IT ACT. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS SUBMITT ED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT IF THE ISSUE REGARDING REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(E) FOR FRESH DECISION, THEN THIS ISSUE FOR N ON-GRANTING OF RECOGNITION U/S. 80G SHOULD ALSO BE RESTORED BACK TO HIS FILE F OR FRESH DECISION AFTER DECIDING THE ASSESSEES REQUEST FOR REGISTRATION U/ S. 12AA OF IT ACT. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(E). 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY CIT(E), THE CIT(E) HIMSELF HAS STAT ED THAT THIS IS THE BASIS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION FOR REGISTRAT ION U/S. 12AA OF IT ACT HAS BEEN REJECTED, THE ASSESSEES REQUEST FOR RECOGNITI ON U/S. 80G IS ALSO TO BE REJECTED. REGARDING THE ASSESSEES REQUEST FOR REG ISTRATION U/S. 12AA, WE HAVE ALREADY RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE O F CIT(E) FOR FRESH DECISION AND THEREFORE, ON THIS ISSUE ALSO I.E. RECOGNITION U/S. 80G, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(E) AND RESTORE THIS MATTER ALSO BACK T O THE FILE OF CIT(E) FOR ITA NOS. 2726 & 2729/BANG/2017 PAGE 4 OF 4 FRESH DECISION AFTER DECIDING THE ISSUE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEES REQUEST FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF IT ACT. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN RESPECT OF RECOGNITION U/S. 80G IS ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (LALIET KUMAR) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 11 TH JANUARY, 2019. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.