Sanskar Education Trust, Baroda V. The CIT, III, Baroda

ITA 2902/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85845 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-03-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH SR D R
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ././ ./ ITA NO. 2902/AHD/2014 SANSKAR EDUCATION TRUST, AT & PO PIPALIYA TAL. WAGHODIA, VADODARA PAN : AABAS 8428 A CIT-III VADODARA / // / (APPELLANT) / // / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI TEJ SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI DINESH SINGH, SR. DR. !' # $%&/ // / DATE OF HEARING : 25/03/2015 '() # $%& / // / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27/03/2015 *+ *+ *+ *+/ // / O R D E R PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-III, BA RODA DATED 28.08.2014 PASSED U/S 12AA(1)(B)(II) R.W.S. 12A OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS SUBMITTE D BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN EDUCATIONAL TRUST WHICH IS RUNNING VARIOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. THAT WHATEVER DETAILS AS KED FOR BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX WERE SUBMITTED; HOWEVER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX REFUSED TO REGISTER THE TRUST WITH TH E FOLLOWING FINDING:- 5. THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE LD. COUNCIL OF THE AP PLICANT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. THE REPLY IS NOT ONLY SELF CONTRADICTOR Y, VAGUE AND COMPLETELY UNSATISFACTORY BUT ALSO MOSTLY AIMED AT WITHHOLDING INFORMATION. ITA NO. 2902/AHD/2014 SANSKAR EDUCATION TRUST V. CIT 12AA(1)(B)(II) 2 3. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT, BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE ABOVE FINDING, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX DID NOT ALL OW ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY WHY THE ASSESSEES REPLY IS NEITHER SELF-CONTRADICTORY NOR VAGUE. IF HE WANTED ANY FURTHER INFORMATION, H E COULD HAVE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT SOME MORE INFORMATION RATHER THA N REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WITHHELD VARIOUS INFORMATION. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO REQUESTED FOR AD MISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 29, IN WHICH HE ATTACHED BANK S TATEMENTS PERTAINING TO THREE YEARS OF THE VARIOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS BEING RUN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING PRIMARY SCHO OL, SECONDARY SCHOOL, COLLEGES ETC. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE LD. COUNSEL SU BMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO RE GISTER THE TRUST OR ALTERNATIVELY, THE MATTER SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO HI S FILE FOR ALLOWING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE O RDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX PASSED U/S 12AA(1)(B)(II ) R.W.S. 12A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. HE, HOWEVER, HAS N O SERIOUS OBJECTION TO THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX FOR RECONSIDERATION. HE ALSO STATED THA T IF THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES I S ACCEPTED, THEN THE MATTER SHOULD CERTAINLY GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX BECAUSE HE MUST GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE T HOSE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BO TH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. IN OUR OPIN ION, IT WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX PASSED U/S ITA NO. 2902/AHD/2014 SANSKAR EDUCATION TRUST V. CIT 12AA(1)(B)(II) 3 12AA(1)(B)(II) R.W.S. 12A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT DAT ED 28.08.2014 IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO HIS FILE . WE O RDER ACCORDINGLY AND DIRECT HIM TO ALLOW ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH ALL THE EVIDENCES WH ICH HE WANTS TO FURNISH BEFORE US AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. WE FURTHER DIRE CT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX THAT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE FUR NISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AS MAY BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, IF HE REQUIRES ANY OTHER INFORMATION HE WILL SPECIFY THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW ADEQUATE TIME TO PRODUCE THE SAME. THEREAFTE R, HE WILL PASS THE ORDER U/S 12AA(1)(B)(II) R.W.S. 12A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 27 TH MARCH, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.D. AGRAWAL) VICE-PRESIDENT AHMEDABAD; DATED 27/03/2015 BIJU T., PS *+ *+ *+ *+ # $, -*,)$ # $, -*,)$ # $, -*,)$ # $, -*,)$/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $ . / CONCERNED CIT 4. . ( ) / THE CIT(A) - XV, AHMEDABAD 5. ,!12 $ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 234 5' / GUARD FILE . *+ *+ *+ *+ / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY 6 66 6/ // / 7 7 7 7 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD