Smt. Gayatri Devi Educational Society, Farrukhabad V. C.I.T., Aligarh

ITA 426/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 42620314 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SOHAIL AKHTAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SWARN SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 80G; 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI A. L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 408/AGRA/2010 & ITA NO. 426/AGRA/2011 SMT. GAYATRI DEVI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, VS. COMMISS IONER OF 2/25, LOHAI ROAD, FARRUKHABAD. INCOME-TAX ALIGA RH. (PAN : AAAAG 4979 K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI SWARN SINGH, C.A. FOR REVENUE : SHRI SOHAIL AKHTAR, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 22.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.02.2012 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : BOTH THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAI NST THE COMMON ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ALIGARH DATED 2 7.07.2010 REFUSING TO GRANT REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA AND APPROVAL OF EXEMPTION U/ S. 80G OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE INITIALLY FILED ONE APPEAL IN ITA N O. 408/AGRA/2010 AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER WITHIN TIME. HOWEVER, LATER ON, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD FILE SEPARATE APPEALS AGAINST BOTH THE PROVI SIONS, UNDER WHICH THE LD. COMMISSIONER PASSED CONSOLIDATED ORDER. THE ASSESSE E, ACCORDINGLY, FILED ITA NO. ITA NO. 408/AGRA/2010 & ITA NO. 426/AGRA/2011 2 426/AGRA/2011 ON REALIZING THE MISTAKE IN FILING ON E APPEAL AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER. THE ASSESSEE, THEREF ORE, MADE A REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, NOTED ABOVE, THE DELAY IN FILING ITA NO. 426/AGRA/2011 IS CONDONED. ON THE RE QUEST OF BOTH THE PARTIES, ITA NO. 426/AGRA/2011 IS ALSO TAKEN UP FOR HEARING TOGE THER. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AND PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER & THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER MENTIONED THE A DDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS 2/75A LOHAI ROAD, FARRUKHABAD IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER . HOWEVER, THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS 2/25, LOHAI ROAD, FARRUK HABAD AND SUCH FACT IS MENTIONED IN THE SOCIETY REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE A S WELL AS THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR REGISTRATION, COPIES OF WHICH ARE FIL ED IN THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO REFERRED TO ORDER SHEET DATED 27.07.2010 (BP-31), I N WHICH IT IS RECORDED THAT THE NOTICE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE RETURNED UN-SERVED WITH THE REMARKS OF THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES THAT SUCH PERSON IS NOT RESIDING AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. THE ADDRESS NOTED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER IS 2/75A, LOHAI ROAD, FARRU KHABAD IN THE ORDER SHEET WHICH IS INCORRECT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ITA NO. 408/AGRA/2010 & ITA NO. 426/AGRA/2011 3 IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT GIVING OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUB MITTED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING REASONS FOR DEC ISION IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD. DR, HOWEVER, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER. 5. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES RE-CONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE LD. COMMISSION ER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT FROM THE ORDER SHEET AND THE R EQUIRED DOCUMENTS THAT THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS 2/25, LOHAI ROAD , FARRUKHABAD, BUT INCORRECT ADDRESS IS NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE ORDE R SHEET BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY AS 2/75A, LOHAI ROAD, FARRUKHABAD. EVEN T HE NOTICE SENT ON THE INCORRECT ADDRESS FOR HEARING OF THE REGISTRATION A PPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERVED WITH THE NOTICE OF HEARING DUE TO ABOVE REASONS BEFORE PASSI NG OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. FURTHER, THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS N OT PASSED A REASONED ORDER, WHICH IS MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW. IN THE A BSENCE OF GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF HEARING AND IN THE A BSENCE OF ANY REASONS FOR DECISION IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. WE ITA NO. 408/AGRA/2010 & ITA NO. 426/AGRA/2011 4 ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTO RE BOTH THE MATTERS TO THE FILE OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ALIGARH FOR HIS RE- CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE LD. COMMISSIONER SHALL GIVE REASONABL E OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER ON THE MAT TER IN ISSUE. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.02.2012. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2012 *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 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY