Bajme Imdad Trust, Baroda V. The CIT-I, Baroda

ITA 343/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 34320514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL R SHAH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 80G

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND SHRI A. MOHAN A LANKAMONY, AM) ITA NO. 343/AHD/2011 A. Y.: N. A. BAJME IMDAD TRUST, 5 GULSHAN CHAMBER, MUNSHI NAGAR, VASNA ROAD, VADODARA VS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I, VADODARA PA NO. AABTB 5328 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI ANIL R. SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI B. L. YADAV, DR DATE OF HEARING: 16-12-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23-12-2011 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX-I, BARODA DATED 13-12-2010 U/S 80 G (5) (VI) OF THE IT ACT ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: (1) THE LEARNED C.I.T.-I HAS ERRED ON LAW IN NOT G RANTING APPROVAL TO TRUST U/S 80G (5) (VI) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT. (2) THE LD. C. I. T.-I ERRED ON LAW & ON FACTS BY N OT CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE TRUST. ITA NO.343/AHD/2011 BAJME IMDAD TRUST VS CIT-I, BARODA 2 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS AS NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDE R ARE THAT ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR APPROVAL U/S 80G (5) (VI) OF T HE IT ACT IN PRESCRIBED FORM BEFORE THE CIT. ON PERUSAL OF THE A CCOUNTS ENCLOSED WITH THE APPLICATION IT WAS NOTICED THAT IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009-2010 THE ASSESSEE TRUST DID NOT APPLY 85% OF ITS INCOME FOR ITS PROJECT. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND OP PORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS. IT IS NOTED THAT I N RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THE ASSESSEE TRUST FURNISHED PART OF T HE DETAILS BUT REMAINED SILENT AS REGARDS THE NON-APPLICATION OF T HE INCOME TOWARDS THE PROJECT OF THE TRUST TO THE EXTENT OF 85%. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FURTHER NOTED THAT NO FU RTHER COMPLIANCE IS MADE AND ACCORDINGLY APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A PPROVAL UNDER THE ABOVE PROVISIONS. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PB-1 WHICH IS APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX DATED 15-7-2011 IN WHICH IT WAS HIGHLIGHTED THAT I NADVERTENTLY AND BY MISTAKE ALL THE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WERE FILED BEFORE THE ITO, WARD -2(3), B ARODA. IT WAS FURTHER PRAYED TO THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX TO CONSIDER THE MATTER AND RECTIFY THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER INTENDED NOT TO MAKE ANY COMPLIANCE BEFORE TH E LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND THE MATTER MAY BE RE MANDED TO HIM FOR RECONSIDERATION BECAUSE HIS APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION IS NOT YET DECIDED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX. ON THE ITA NO.343/AHD/2011 BAJME IMDAD TRUST VS CIT-I, BARODA 3 OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR THOUGH RELIED UPON THE I MPUGNED ORDER BUT SUBMITTED THAT MATTER COULD BE REMANDED TO THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOR RECONSIDERATION. 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES AND SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE M ATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE LEARNED COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX. THE ASSESSEE MADE PART COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE L EARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ACCORDING TO THE LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER COMPLIANCE WERE MADE BUT I NADVERTENTLY THE DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ITO, BARODA. THIS FAC T WAS APPRAISED TO THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BUT IT APPEA RS THAT NO FURTHER ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN IN THE MATTER. IT, TH EREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO CO MPLY WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND INTEREST OF JUSTICE REQUIRES THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOR RE-AD JUDICATION OF THE MATTER BY GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED OR DER AND RESTORE THE MATTER IN ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, BARODA WITH DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRO DUCE ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS DIRECTLY BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHAL L PASS REASONED ORDER BY GIVING REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.343/AHD/2011 BAJME IMDAD TRUST VS CIT-I, BARODA 4 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD