National Highway Authority of India, Amritsar. V. The Income-tax Officer, Amritsar.

ITA 437/ASR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4433 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 437 (ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAN: AMRMI0867D M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAY VS. INCOME TAX OFFIC ER, AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TDS-1, AMRITSAR DREAM LAND, AMRITSAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. NIRMAL MAHAJAN, CA RESPONDENT BY: SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 04.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11.09.2013 ORDER PER BENCH 1) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.05.2011 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AMRITSAR, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-1 2 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. THE COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIF IED IN PASSING HIS ORDER U/S 250(6) AS HE HAS NEITHER CONS IDERED ANY OF THE SUBMISSIONS/ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT AND HAS NOT ADJUDICATED ON ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2 I.T.A. NO. 437 (ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 II. THE COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIF IED IN HOLDING THAT THE TOLL PLAZA HAS BEEN LEASED OUT BY THE NHAI AND IT IS LIABLE TO TCS. WHEREAS THE NHAI HAS LEASED OUT T HE HIGHWAY ON BOOT BASIS AND THE JATL IS IN CONTROL OF THE NATION AL HIGHWAY AND TOLL BELONG TO HIM. EVEN THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATI ON CLEARLY SAYS THAT JATL WILL COLLECT THE TOLL AND RETAIN THAT. III. ANY OTHER GROUND WHICH MAY BE RAISED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2) FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES; THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO RE PEAT THE SAME. 3) LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MAINLY ARGUED T HAT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED O RDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS/ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESS EE AND HAS NOT ADJUDICATED ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERIT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPL ES OF NATURAL JUSTICE THAT HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNI TY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM BEFORE HIM. LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE AGREEMENT AND V ARIOUS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY HIM IN THE SHAPE OF SMALL PAPER BOOK I.E. PAGES FROM 1 TO 47, WHEREIN HE HAS ATTACHED WRITTEN ARGUMENT BEFORE CIT(A); CONCESSION AGREEMENT; GAZETTE NOTIFICATION HINDI; GAZETTE NOTIFICATION ENGLISH; NEWS PAPER ENGLISH; AND NEWS PAPER PUNJABI. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS ALSO FILED A JUDG MENT OF HON'BLE 3 I.T.A. NO. 437 (ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT PASSED IN WRIT TAX NO. 1629 OF 2010 IN THE CASE OF M/S FATEH CHAND CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER, DECIDED ON 27.05.2013 AND A JUDGMENT O F I.T.A.T., AHMEDABAD B BENCH PASSED IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT R OAD & INFRASTRUCTURE CO. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, IN I.T.A. NOS. 1450 TO 1453/AHD/ 2008, REPORTED IN (2011) 56 DTR ( AHD.)(TRIB.) 73. HE FINALLY STATED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LE ARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE; AS SUCH THE SAME MAY BE CANCELLED. 4) ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDE R PASSED BY LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5) WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOK ALONG WITH THE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT AND I.T.A.T., AHMEDABAD B BE NCH (SUPRA) AND WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LEARNED F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT GIV ING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM, WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. NO DOUBT THE ASSE SSEE HAS FILED VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOK BE FORE US AND HE HAS 4 I.T.A. NO. 437 (ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE RELEVANT PORTI ON OF THE SAME. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NON-SPEAKING ONE AND WITHOUT COMMENTING UPON THE MERITS OF THE CASE, IN THE INTE REST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE O F LEARNED CIT(A), AMRITSAR, FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW, AFTER AFFORDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FO R SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM. 6) IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF IND IA, DREAM LAND, AMRITSAR 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, AMRITSAR 3. THE CIT(A), AMRITSAR 4. THE CIT, AMRITSAR 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.