Sarvodya Shishu Shiksha Samiti, Ghaziabad V. CIT (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 403/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9084 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SARAS KUMAR
• Section: 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI FRIDAY BENCH G : NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 403/DEL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : SARVODYA SHISHU SHIKSHA VS. CIT (EXEMPTION), SAMITI, GHAZIABAD LUCKNOW RALLI INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, NITIKHAND-III, INDRAPURAM, GHAZIABADN UTTAR PRADESH -201014 (PAN: AACAS8105K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. ROHIT TIWARI, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SH. SARAS KUMAR, SR. DR. DATE OF HEARING : 07.08.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.08.2020 ORDER PER K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JM : AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER DATED 24/9/2018 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW (LD. CIT(E)) U/S. 12AA( 1 )(B)(III) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IN THE CASE OF SARVODYA SHIHU SIKSHA SAMITI (THE ASSESSEE), THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE BEEN RUNNING A SCHOOL FOR EDUCATION TO ALL AS A DREAM PROJECT OF GOVERNMENT FOR EDUCATION TO ALL AND FILED AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12 AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT UTHE ACT) ON 31/3/2018 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW (CIT (E)). LD. CIT(A) BY ORDER DATED 24/9/2018 REJECTED THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THEIR ADDRESS AS RALLY INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, NITIKHAND-III, INDIRAPURAM, UP-201014, NO NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE IN THIS ADDRESS AND ON THE OTHER HAND THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOWS THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SARVODAYA SHISHU SIKSHA SAMITI, 004. KAUTILYA APPARTMENT, VASUNDHARA, GAZIABAD. LD. AR, THEREFORE, SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER PASSED WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE IS BAD UNDER LAW AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 4. LD. DR SUBMITS THAT VIDE PARAGRAPH NO. 2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE NOTICE DATED 31/8/2018 PERCENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ADDRESS FURNISHED BY THEM IN FORM NO. 10 A, AND THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER DOES NOT SUFFER ANY IRREGULARITY OR ILLEGALITY. 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON EITHER SIDE. IT IS EVIDENT THAT IN FORM 10 A ENCLOSED AT PAGE NUMBERS 25 TO 27 IN THE APPEAL SET, THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOTED BY THE AUTHORITIES IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE FORM 10 A. THERE IS NO MATERIAL BEFORE US TO 3 SHOW THAT THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM 10 A. THE IMPUGNED ORDER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOTED WRONGLY FROM THE ONE GIVEN IN FORM 10 A. IF REALLY THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM 10 A, THE MISTAKE OF ADDRESS WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 6. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM 10 A, AND THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER NEEDS TO BE SET-ASIDE AND REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(E) FOR FRESH DISPOSAL AFTER ISSUING NOTICE TO THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS GIVEN IN FORM 10 A. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ABOVE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED ON 7LH THE DAY OF AUGUST, 2020 . SRB 07.08.2020 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT: SD /- (G.S. PANNU) VICE PRESIDENT SD /- (K.NARASIMHA CHARY) JUDICIAL MEMBER 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR