Sh. Rustam Singh Memorial Society, Firozabad V. C.I.T.-II, Agra

ITA 403/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 40320314 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 30-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SOHAIL AKHTAR
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 403/AGRA/2011 SHRI RUSTAM SINGH MEMORIAL SOCIETY, VS. THE COMMI SSIONER OF RAJENDRA SINGH PUBLIC SCHOOL CAMPUS, INCOME-TAX-I I, AGRA. SECTOR -1, SUHAG NAGAR, FIROZABAD. (PAN : AAJTS 1530Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SOHAIL AKHTAR, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 30.04.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 30.04.2012 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT-II, AGRA DATED 20.07.2011 REFUSING TO GRANT REGISTRATION U/S . 12AA OF THE IT ACT. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE. WRITTEN SYNOPSIS IS FORWARDED, WHICH IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDER ATION. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. THE LD. CIT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE IT ACT AND T HE ASSESSEE SOCIETY VIDE HIS OFFICE ITA NO. 403/AGRA/2011 2 LETTER DATED 04.07.2011 WAS REQUESTED TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM ON 13.07.2011 TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIM AND CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON THE DATE OF HEARING, N OBODY ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER AND NO APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED. SINCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE ASSES SEE SOCIETY WITH U.P. GOVERNMENT HAD ALREADY EXPIRED IN JANUARY OF THE INSTANT YEAR, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT WAS UNABLE TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE OBJECT IVES AND THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY. THEREFORE, THE REGISTRATION APPLI CATION WAS REJECTED. 4. THE ASSESSEE, IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, SATED TH AT THE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY THE AO WERE PRODUCED AND DR. RAM PRAKASH SINGH, THE MAN AGER OF THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY WAS SUFFERING FROM ILL HEALTH WHEN HEARING OF THE R EGISTRATION APPLICATION WAS FIXED AND NO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESS EE. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, THE SAME GROUNDS HAVE BEEN REPEATED AND COPY OF A MEDICAL CE RTIFICATE WAS ALSO FILED WITH THE APPEAL PAPERS. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE RE GISTRATION MAY BE GRANTED U/S. 12AA OF THE IT ACT. 5. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SU BMITTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENT ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT RIGHTLY REJECTE D THE APPLICATION AND THAT ON THE ITA NO. 403/AGRA/2011 3 MEDICAL CERTIFICATE THERE IS NO DATE AND NO PRESCRI PTION IS PROVIDED. THEREFORE, VAGUE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE MAY NOT BE RELIED UPON. 6. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND SUBMISSI ONS, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER, R EFUSING TO GRANT REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT ALL THE DOCUMENT S WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO. HOWEVER, NO SUCH DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE P RESENT APPEAL PAPERS AND NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW IF ANY DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT NO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. BOTH THE POINTS ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS SPECIFICALLY NOTED IN THE IMPU GNED ORDER THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER RELEVANT DO CUMENTS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND THAT THE REGISTRATION UNDER THE SOCI ETIES ACT HAD ALREADY EXPIRED AT THE TIME OF CONSIDERATION OF THE REGISTRATION APPLICATI ON. IT IS, THEREFORE, THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THROUGH MATERIAL ON RECORD TH AT SUCH DOCUMENTS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO REBUT THE FINDI NGS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT NO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE, BUT IT IS ALSO INCORRECT. ONCE THE ASSESSEE FILED MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF THE MANAGER TO SHOW THAT HE WAS ILL AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF REGISTRATION APPLICATION, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF NOT SERVING ANY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ITA NO. 403/AGRA/2011 4 ASSESSEE. IF NO NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER, THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THE ASS ESSEE TO GET PREPARED THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANC E IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENT OR EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND IN THE GROUN DS OF APPEAL FURTHER STATED THAT MANAGER OF THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY WAS SUFFERING FROM ILL HEALTH WHEN THE REGISTRATION APPLICATION WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE LD. CO MMISSIONER. THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR. A.K. BHATNAGAR IS PLACED ON RECORD WH ICH IS UNDATED AND WAS ISSUED AFTER ALLEGED ILLNESS OF THE MANAGER WAS OVER. IT I S STATED IN THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE THAT DR. RAM PRAKASH SINGH WAS SUFFERING FROM PYSEXIA WI TH BRONCHITIS AND REMAINED UNDER HIS TREATMENT FROM 30.06.2011 TO 14.07.2011 A ND NOW HE IS PHYSICALLY FIT TO RESUME HIS WORK. THIS MEDICAL CERTIFICATE, AS NOTED ABOVE, IS UNDATED AND ALSO NOT BEARING ANY REGISTRATION NUMBER OF THE PATIENT. NO PRESCRIPTION IS PROVIDED TO THE PATIENT IN THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE. THEREFORE, SUCH A MEDICAL CERTIFICATE CANNOT BE BELIEVED. IT APPEARS THAT SAID MEDICAL CERTIFICATE IS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CONNIVANCE WITH THE CONCERNED DOCTOR. THEREFORE, TH ERE IS NO COGENT AND RELIABLE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO PROVE IF THE MANAGE R WAS ILL AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE REGISTRATION APPLICATION. FURTHER, AS PER THE S AID MEDICAL CERTIFICATE, THE MANAGER WAS FIT TO RESUME DUTY FROM 14.07.2011 AND THE LD. CIT PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON 20.07.11 AND NOTHING IS EXPLAINED IF THE ASSESSEE H AD TAKEN ANY STEP FOR MOVING ANY APPLICATION BEFORE THE LD. CIT SHOWING INTENTION TO JOIN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM IN ITA NO. 403/AGRA/2011 5 BETWEEN 15.07.2011 TO 20.07.2011. THE SAME IS THE P OSITION BEFORE US, AS THE ASSESSEE CHOSE TO REMAIN UN-REPRESENTED IN THE APPELLATE PRO CEEDINGS BEFORE US. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED WHY THE OTHER RESPONSIBL E PERSONS OF THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY DID NOT MOVE BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER FOR PRODUC ING THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF REGISTRATION APPLICATION BEFORE THE LD. CIT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION AND ANY MATERIAL/EVIDENCE AND CONSIDERI NG THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, NOTED ABOVE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE SAME IS CONFIRMED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IS DISMISSED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO MOVE FRESH APPLICATION BE FORE THE LD. CIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IF SO ADVISED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.04.2012. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY