ITO, CHENNAI V. The Anjuman-E-Khyrkhah-E-Aam, Vaniambadi

ITA 422/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96496 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: S A ABDUL RAHIM; MURALI
• Section: 11

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHENNAI , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . /ITA NOS. 419 TO 423/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 TO 2008-09 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, CHENNAI 34. ( /APPELLANT) V. M/S. THE ANJUMAN-E-KHYRKHAH- E-AAM, NO.610-A, JAMATH ROAD, MUSLIMPUR, VANIYAMBADI 635 751. PAN AABTT4040J RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MURALI, ADVOCATE & SHRI S.A. ABDUL RAHIM, FCA ! / DATE OF HEARING : 06.11.2015 '# ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.12.2015 ! / O R D E R THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINS T THE COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPE ALS) DATED 22,7,2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2008-09. - - ITA 419 TO 423/15 2 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN THESE APPEALS IS WITH REGARD TO GRANTING OF EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT, THOUGH THERE IS NO VALID REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT. 3. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 131 DAYS IN FILING THESE AP PEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE DEPARTMENT FILED A CONDO NATION PETITION EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR DELAY, WHEREIN IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER (JUDICI AL), WHO IS ASSISTING THE DIT(EXEMPTIONS) IN PREPARING THE GROU NDS OF APPEAL, HAD SHIFTED HIS OFFICE FROM ROOM NO.317 OF MAIN BUILDING TO ROOM NO.400 OF ANNEXE BUILDING DUE TO RESTRUCTUR ING OF THE DEPARTMENT, THE FILES GOT MIXED UP WITH OTHER FILES DURING TRANSIT FROM ONE ROOM TO ANOTHER ROOM. AS SOON AS THE FILE WAS TRACED OUT, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE PREPARED AND GOT AP PROVED BY THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS) AND THE APPEAL PAPERS WERE PREP ARED FOR SUBMISSION BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT. MOREOVER, THE J URISDICTION OVER THE CASE, WHICH WAS EARLIER WITH ITO, WARD-3 H AS BEEN GOT TRANSFERRED TO THIS OFFICE DUE TO RE-STRUCTURING, THEREFORE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS OVERALL DELAY OF 131 DAYS I N SUBMITTING THE APPEALS AND PRAYED TO CONDONE THE DELAY. - - ITA 419 TO 423/15 3 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE REASONS ADVANCED BY THE DEPARTMENT. WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE IS GOOD AN D SUFFICIENT REASON IN FILING THESE APPEALS BELATEDLY. ACCORDIN GLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEALS FOR ADJUDI CATION. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. AR, AT THE OUTSET, OBJECTED THE MAINTENANCE OF THESE APPEALS ON THE REASON THAT THERE IS A VALI D ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.796/MDS/2011 DATED 18.7.2011 R.W . THE ORDER IN M.P.NO.109/MDS/2013 DATED 27.8.2013, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT, RETROSPEC TIVELY. THE DEPARTMENT FILED THESE APPEALS ON THE REASON THAT T HEY ARE PURSUING THE MATTER BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. AND IT C ANNOT BE A REASON TO FILE THESE APPEALS CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR CANNOT B E UPHELD ON THE REASON THAT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT IN ALL TH ESE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THERE WAS NO ORDER AVAILABLE BEFO RE THE AO AND THE AO OUT RIGHTLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSE U/S.11 AS WELL AS U/S.10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED ALLOWABILITY OF EXEMPTION U/S.11 OR THERE IS ANY VIOLATION U/S.13(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT - - ITA 419 TO 423/15 4 ONCE REGISTRATION IS GRANTED CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE AO IS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE ALLOWABILIT Y OF EXEMPTION U/S.11 AND HE HAS TO SEE WHETHER THERE IS ANY VIOLA TION OF SEC.13(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS NOT DONE BY THE AO. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 6. NOW, COMING TO THE GROUND FRAMED BY THE REVENUE REGARDING ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEALS WITHOUT D ISCUSSING THE MERITS OF THE CASE, IN OUR OPINION, IN ALL THES E ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ALLOWABILITY OF EXEMPTION U/S.11, WHICH IS TO BE VERIFIED BY THE AO AND THE C IT(APPEALS) OUT RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE ON T HE REASON THAT THE ASSESSE IS HAVING GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT BY THE TRIBUNAL. HE HAS ALSO FAILED TO GET IT EXAMINE D BY THE AO. HENCE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE REMIT THE ENTIRE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO ALLOW EXEMPTION U/S. 11 AS OF NOW, THERE IS GRANTING OF REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE A CT BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE AO SHALL EXAMINE THE ALLOWABILITY O F EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT FROM THE DATE OF GRANTING OF REGI STRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT, CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED SUPRA. - - ITA 419 TO 423/15 5 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 14 TH OF DEC., 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( $ % & ' ) ()*+,-*.//0*-12 ! 34566/7+8*+89:;<:- $= /CHENNAI, >3 /DATED, THE 14 TH DEC., 2015. MPO* 3? @ABA /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. C2 /CIT(A) 4. C /CIT 5. ADE F /DR 6. EGH /GF.