Srustee, Cuttack V. ACIT, Cuttack

ITA 38/CTK/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90820 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVIN CHOUDHURY
• Assessee Lawyers: SASHWAT ACHARYA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Opportunity of being heard; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 12A; 37; 11

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH , CUTTACK [ , . . , BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV , J M & SHRI B.P.JAIN , A M ./ ITA NO S . 37 TO 39 /CTK/201 4 ( [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08 ) SRUSTEE, GODHULI LANE, DEULA SAHI, TULASIPUR, CUTTACK - 08 VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), CUTTACK ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A BIFS 7075 E ( / APPELLA NT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) [ /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SASHWAT ACHARYA /REVENUE BY : SHRI RAVIN CHOUDHURY / DATE OF HEARING : 2 6 TH MAY , 201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27 TH MA Y ,2 015 / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV (J.M) : TH ESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), CUTTACK FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08 ON COMMON GROUNDS. FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE G ROUNDS RAISED IN APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5 - 0 6 I.E. ITA NO. 37 /CTK/201 4 AS UNDER : - 1. FOR THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, BEREFT OF ANY MERIT AND NON - JUSTIFIED AND AS SUCH THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED IN LIMINE . 2. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DENYING THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 TO THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT THE APPELLANT IS DEEMED TO BE REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 3. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MERELY ON THE ALLEGED GROUND OF NON - APPEARANCE, WHEN THE FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE HAD ALREADY BEEN WELL EXPLAINED IN THE STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD, CIT(A). ITA NO S . 37 - 39 /1 4 2 4. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO CONFIRM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DENYING THE EXEMPTION U/S 11, WHEN THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY MADE EXPENDITURE FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 11 OF THE I.T. ACT . 5. FOR THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND THE PRESENT GROUND(S) AND/OR ADD FURTHER GROUNDS, IF ANY, AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATT ENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THESE APPEALS WITHOUT AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS DISPOSED OFF THE APPEALS SUMMARILY WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS RAISED ON MERIT BEF ORE HIM. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE CIT(A) IS REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE EACH AND EVERY GROUND RAISED BEFORE HIM BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER AND CANNOT DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL SUMMARILY, THEREFORE, THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO RE - ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE HIM ON MERIT BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. 3. L EARNED DR , ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 4 . HAVING CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSION, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS DENIED THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT FOR THE REASONS THAT THE REGISTRATION U/S.12A WAS NOT GRANTED BY THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX. THE AO ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND COMPUTED THE INCOME AFTER TREATING THE ASSESSEE AS AN AOP. AGGRIEVED ITA NO S . 37 - 39 /1 4 3 THEREBY THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A) FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDE R CONSIDERATION BUT DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE HIM AND THE CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER VARIOUS DATES OF HEARING BUT IT IS NOT BORN OUT FROM HIS ORDER WHETHER THE NOTICE OF HEARING HAS EVER BEEN SERVED UPON THE A SSESSEE. THE CIT(A) HAS PROCEEDED EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AND DISPOSED OFF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE SUMMARILY. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT HE DID NOT ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS INDEPENDENTLY BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. I N FEW LINES, THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT DISPOSED OFF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORD ER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXTEND ALL THE SORTS OF COOPERATION TO THE CI T(A) FOR DISPOSAL OF APPEALS ON MERIT. 5 . IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 / 05 / 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . . ) (B. P. JAIN) ( ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK ; DATED 27 /0 5 / 201 5 . . /PKM , . / PS ITA NO S . 37 - 39 /1 4 4 / COPY OF THE ORDER FOR WARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, CUTTACK 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT , CUTTACK 6. [ / GUARD FILE. //TRU E COPY//