MAHARAJA SURAJMAL BRIJ VISHAV VIDYALAYA, BHARATPUR V. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

ITA 291/JPR/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4832 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMBRISH BEDI DHK
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES A, JAIPUR JH LANHI XLKA ] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 291 & 295/JP/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: MAHARAJA SURAJMAL BRIJ VISHWAVIDHALAYA, MSJ PARISAR, BHARATPUR. C UKE VS. C.I.T.(EXEMPTION) JAIPUR. PAN NO.: AAAJM 2498 J VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SIDDHARTH RANKA (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI AMBRISH BEDI (CIT-DR) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 13/10/2020 MN?KKS 'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/10/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. BOTH THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR PASSED U/S 12AA(1)(B)(II) AND 80G(5)(VI) RESPECTIVELY OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BOTH DATED 06/07/2020. 2. THE HEARING OF THE APPEALS WAS CONCLUDED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE IN VIEW OF THE PREVAILING SITUATION OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC. 3. FIRSTLY, WE TAKE ITA NO. 291/JP/2020 ITA 291 & 295/JP/2020_ MAHARAJA SURAJMAL BRIJ VISHWAVIDHALAYA VS CIT(E) 2 IN THIS APPEAL, THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(E) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL EX PARTE WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SAME ARGUMENTS AS WERE RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CITA(A) AND HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(E) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SUMMARILY WHILE PASSING THE EX PARTE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE LD. AR HAS PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(E) FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. CIT-DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(E) HAS GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS ABOUT THE PROSECUTION OF THE APPEAL, THEREFORE, IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EX PARTE. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(E). 5. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE NOTE THAT THAT THE LD. CIT(E) HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER EX PARTE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SUMMARILY AS UNDER: ITA 291 & 295/JP/2020_ MAHARAJA SURAJMAL BRIJ VISHWAVIDHALAYA VS CIT(E) 3 4. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE APPLICANT DID NOT SUBMIT ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TRUST/SOCIETY AS WELL AS EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM UNDER RULE 17A OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT REGARDING ESTABLISHING OF THE TRUST/SOCIETY FOR VERIFICATION BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BE DONE BY THE APPLICANT. 5. TO DECIDE THE MATTER OF SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA, THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES BEING UNDER TAKEN BY THE APPLICANT ARE ALSO TO BE EXAMINED. FOR THIS PURPOSE, IT WAS REQUIRED BY THE APPLICANT TO FURNISH BANK A/C STATEMENT TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM, HOWEVER, NO SUCH DOCUMENTS WERE FURNISHED BY THE APPLICANT. MOREOVER, NO PROOF OF EXISTENCE OF SOCIETY AT THE PREMISE MENTIONED BY THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN FURNISHED. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT KNOWN THAT THE APPLICANT IS ACTUALLY CARRYING OUT THE ACTIVITIES AS PER ITS OBJECTS. THUS, THE CHARITABLE NATURE AND GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE APPLICANT COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED. 6. SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN PROVIDED 'TO THE APPLICANT TO PRODUCE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BUT APPLICANT HAVE FAILED TO DO SO. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE APPLICATION SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA IS HEREBY REJECTED AND FILED. FROM THE RECORDS, WE NOTICED THAT LD. CIT(E) HAD PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER AS NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(E). ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER, WE ALSO NOTICED THAT INITIALLY THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING AND WAS ADJOURNED FROM TIME TO TIME ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS, BUT NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DETAILS OF HEARING AND ITA 291 & 295/JP/2020_ MAHARAJA SURAJMAL BRIJ VISHWAVIDHALAYA VS CIT(E) 4 THE REASONS FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FULLY EXPLAINED IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(E). WE NOTICED THAT THROUGHOUT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED NON- COOPERATIVE DESPITE AVAILING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES, THEREFORE LD. CIT(E) PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THEREBY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. 6. IN OUR VIEW, IT WAS THE BOUNDED DUTY OF THE PARTIES I.E. ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(E). SINCE, THIS WAS THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION FOR SEEKING REGISTRATION, THEREFORE IT WAS ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE LD. CIT(E). HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ACTED WITH DUE DILIGENCE. NEVERTHELESS, THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE DEMANDS THAT THE LIS BETWEEN THE PARTIES SHOULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(E) AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(E) FOR DECIDING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION AFRESH ON MERITS AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(E) IN DECIDING THE APPLICATION ON MERITS AND WITHOUT ANY SUFFICIENT REASON, NOT TO TAKE FURTHER ADJOURNMENTS. IF THE ASSESSEE TAKES ADJOURNMENT WITHOUT ANY SUFFICIENT AND PLAUSIBLE REASON, ITA 291 & 295/JP/2020_ MAHARAJA SURAJMAL BRIJ VISHWAVIDHALAYA VS CIT(E) 5 THEN THE LD. CIT(E) IS AT LIBERTY TO PASS ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 7. BEFORE PARTING, WE MAY MAKE IT CLEAR THAT OUR DECISION TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(E) SHALL IN NO WAY BE CONSTRUED AS HAVING ANY REFLECTION OR EXPRESSION ON THE MERITS OF THE DISPUTE, WHICH SHALL BE ADJUDICATED BY LD. CIT(E) INDEPENDENTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 8. NOW WE TAKE ITA NO. 295/JP/2020. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 80G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT BY THE LD. CIT(E). SINCE, WE HAVE RESTORED THE APPEAL FILE WITH REGARD TO SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(E), THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL FILE IS ALSO RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(E) FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH. 9. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH OCTOBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO LANHI XLKA (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 14/10/2020 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- MAHARAJA SURAJMAL BRIJ VISHWAVIDHALAYA, BHARATPUR. ITA 291 & 295/JP/2020_ MAHARAJA SURAJMAL BRIJ VISHWAVIDHALAYA VS CIT(E) 6 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 291 & 295/JP/2020) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR