Vamika Educational and Social Welfare Society, Ghaziabad V. CIT (Exemptions), Lucknow

ITA 3979/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3330 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 08-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3979/DEL/2016 A.Y. : ------- VAMIKA EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY, C/O AKHILESH KUMAR ADVOCATE, 206-207, ANSAL SATYAM RDC, RAJNAGAR, GHAZIABAD (PAN: AAABV0417G) VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 5, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW-226001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. AKHILESH KUMAR, ADV. ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SH. N.K. BANSAL, SR. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11/2/2016 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL READ AS UNDE R:- 1. THAT LD. CIT GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN REFUSING TO GRANT REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE I.T . ACT, 1961 EVEN AFTER SATISFYING WITH THE OBJECTS/ ACTIVI TIES OF THE SOCIETY MERELY ON THE BASIS THAT ASSESSEE HAS N OT CHALLENGED THE EARLIER REJECTION ORDER DATED 17.3.2 015. 2 2. THAT LD. CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IN TERMS OF OBJE CTS, WHOSE CASES OF EARLIER YEARS ARE ALSO ACCEPTED U/S. 143(3) ONLY AFTER CONSIDERING ACTIVITIES AS CHARITA BLE IN TERMS OF SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) HENCE ORDER IS INHE RENTLY ILLEGAL. 3. THAT LD. CIT EVEN FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT REGISTRATION IN EARLIER YEAR WAS REFUSED MERELY FOR NON- COMPLIANCE WITHOUT ANY ADVERSE FINDING AND ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN TO FILE FRESH APPLICATION INSTEAD OF GOI NG IN APPEAL AS CASE WAS COVERED U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAD) TILL THAT YEAR. ORDER IS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL AGA INST THE ASSESSEE AND IS PERVERSE. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE LD. CIT MAY KINDL Y BE DIRECTED BE GRANT THE REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AR E NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 4. DURING THE HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT LD. CIT GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN REF USING TO GRANT REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 EVEN A FTER SATISFYING WITH THE OBJECTS/ ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY MERELY ON THE BA SIS THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE EARLIER REJECTION ORDER DATED 17.3.2 015. HE FURTHER STATED THAT ASSESSEE IS RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IN TERMS OF OBJECTS, WHOSE CASES OF EARLIER YEARS ARE ALSO ACCEPTED U/S. 143(3 ) ONLY AFTER CONSIDERING ACTIVITIES AS CHARITABLE IN TERMS OF SECTION 10(23C )(IIIAD) HENCE ORDER IS INHERENTLY ILLEGAL. IT WAS THE FURTHER CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT LD. CIT EVEN FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT REGISTRATION IN EARLIER YEAR WAS REFUSED MERELY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITHOUT ANY ADVERSE 3 FINDING AND ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN TO FILE FRESH APPLI CATION INSTEAD OF GOING IN APPEAL AS CASE WAS COVERED U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAD) T ILL THAT YEAR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, HE REQUESTED THE BENCH TO KINDLY DIRECT THE LD. CIT TO GRANT THE REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(E), LUCKNOW AND STATED THAT HE HAS PASSED A WELL REASON ED ORDER WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART. HENCE, HE RE QUESTED THAT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.2.2016 AS WELL AS THE PREV IOUS LD. CIT(E)S ORDER DATED 17.3.2015. WE FIND THAT LD.CIT(E) HAS P ASSED THE FOLLOWING IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.2.2016:- - 1. THE ABOVE NAMED SOCIETY HAS FILED AN APPLICATIO N FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 12A(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 21.8.2015 WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW. 2. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE APPLICANT SOCIETY WAS ACCORDED AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER F.NO. CIT(EXEMP.)/LKO/12A/2015-16 DATED 27.1.2016 SENT TO THE APPLICATION ON ADDRESS PROVIDED IN FORM 10A BY SPEED POST (EU4847861961N), CALLING FOR SPECIFIC QUERIES REGARDING ITS APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 12A FOR COMPLIANCE ON 11.2.2016. HOWEVER ON THAT DATE I.E. 11.2.2016 SHRI VIPIN KUMAR, FCA ATTENDED AND THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED WITH HIM. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA VIDE ORDER F.NO. CIT(EXEMPTIONS)/LKO/12AA/2014-15/1686 DATED 4 17.03.2015 WAS ALREADY REJECTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT CHALLENGED THIS ORDER BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT. 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS OF THE CASE SINCE IT WAS REJECTED ON 17.03.2015. 4. ACCORDINGLY, THE REGISTRATION SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT U/S. 12A(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS HEREBY REJECTED. 6. AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED ORDER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD.CIT(E) HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY REFUSI NG TO GRANT REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 MERELY ON THE BASIS THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE EARLIER REJECTION O RDER DATED 17.3.2015, WHICH IS CONTRARY IN THE EYES OF LAW. WE FURTHER N OTE THAT LD. CIT(E) HAS ALSO NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT ASS ESSEE IS RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IN TERMS OF OBJECTS, WHOSE CASES OF EARLIER YEARS ARE ALSO ACCEPTED U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT ONLY AFTER CONSIDERING ACTIVITIES AS CHARITABLE IN TERMS OF SECTION 10(23C )(IIIAD). WE FURTHER FIND THAT LD.CIT(E) WHILE REJECTING THE REGISTRATION TO THE APPLICANT HAS WRONGLY ADOPTED THE VIEW THAT REGISTRATION IN EARLI ER YEAR WAS REFUSED DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE WITHOUT ANY ADVERSE FINDING AND P ASSED THE NON- SPEAKING ORDER WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS EXPLAINED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(E) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION FOR PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DI SPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(E) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, AFTER GIVING AD EQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE/APPLICANT. THE APPLICA NT/ASSESSEE IS ALSO 5 DIRECTED TO FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(E) AND FILE ALL THE REQUISITE DETAILS/DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(E) TO SUBSTANT IATE ITS CASE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/05/2017. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATE 09/05/2017 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES