The Litchi Estate, Pathankot V. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh

ITA 500/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4139 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2019
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P.N.ARORA LD.; FILING BRIEF SYNOPSIS. IT
• Keywords: Gift; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Audi alteram partem
• Section: 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMR ITSAR BEFORE SH. N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.500(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:201 6-17 THE LITCHI ESTATE PATHANKOT O/O DEPUTY DIRECTOR HORTICULTURE, NEAR BEDI FILLING STATION, G.T. ROAD, PATHANKOT, DISTT. PATHANKOT. [PAN:AAAAL 9546P] VS. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. P.N.ARORA (LD. ADV.) RESPONDENT BY: SMT. PARWINDER KAUR (LD. CIT-DR) DATE OF HEARING: 11.02.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.02.2019 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE/APPLICAN T (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS APPELLANT) AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 29.07.2016 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGA RH U/S 12AA OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 1 2AA IS AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IS UNTENABLE UNDE R THE LAW. 2. THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE CIT THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT COMMENCED CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES IS WRONG. 3. THAT THE CIT HAS DENIED THE EXEMPTION ON ACCOUNT OF NON UTILIZATION OF FUNDS AND ACCUMULATING THE GRANT , WHICH IS UNTENABLE UNDER THE LAW. 4. THAT CIT HAS MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER THAT NO EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE ACTIVITIES HAVING ACTUALLY BEEN CARRIED OUT ITA NO.500/ASR/2016 (A.Y.2016 -17 ) THE LITCHI ESTATE, PATHANKOT VS. CIT(E) 2 HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE SOC IETY IS WRONG, IN SPITE OF SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES OF ACTIVITI ES CARRIED OUT BY THE SOCIETY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE CIT THAT THE LITCH I IS GROWN BY THE BIG LANDLORDS AND NOT BY THE SMALL FARMERS ARE WRONG. 6. IT WAS WRONGLY CONTENDED THAT LITCHI CULTIVA TION ON A LARGE SCALE MAY LEAD TO DEPLETION OF EXISTING FORES T COVER. 7. THE COMPOSITION OF THE SOCIETY AND INVOLVEME NT OF GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN QUESTIONED ON THE GROUND THAT I T DOES NOT REPRESENT A PUBLIC CHARITABLE CHARACTER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE EXEMPTIONS. 3. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF THREE DAYS IN FILING THE INSTANT APPEAL, WHICH HAS BE EN EXPLAINED BY THE LD. AR BY SUBMITTING THAT THE APPEA L IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS SENT THROUGH POST, WHICH MAY HAVE RECEIVED BY THE TRIBUNAL LATE AND THE DELAY OF THREE DAYS COULD HAVE BEEN OCCURRED, HOWEVER, DELAY IS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR MALAFIDE AND BUT A REASONABLE ONE. O N THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION BECAUSE OF THE MEAGER DELAY. 4. HAVING CONSIDERED THE DELAY WHICH IS MEAGER AND THE CAUSE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEMS TO BE REASONABLE AND LOGICAL AND HENCE, WE ARE INCLINED TO CONDONE THE DELA Y OF THREE DAYS IN FILING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL. 5 NOW WILL PROCEED TO THE MERIT OF THE APPEAL. IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT SOCIETY HAS FILED THE APPLICA TION U/S 12AA ON DATED 12.01.2016 BY DISCLOSING THE FACTS THA T THE SOCIETY WAS FORMED AS A CHARITABLE SOCIETY ON DATED 9 TH MARCH, 2011 BY THE GOVT. OF PUNJAB IN ORDER TO PROMOTE THE CULTIVATION OF LITCHI IN THE DISTRICT PATHANKOT AND ITS SURROUNDING AREAS WITH THE FOLLOWING AIMS AND OBJECTS AND FUNCTIONS. ITA NO.500/ASR/2016 (A.Y.2016 -17 ) THE LITCHI ESTATE, PATHANKOT VS. CIT(E) 3 (I) TO PROMOTE AND PROPAGATE LITCHI PLANTATIONS AND LIT CHI BASED INDUSTRY. (II) TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR TREATMENT, PACKAGING, STOR AGE, MARKETING, PROCESSING, PRESERVATIONS, TRANSPORT AND EXPORT OF LITCHI. (III) TO FORMULATE POLICY & ACTION PLAN FOR PROMOTION OF LITCHI CULTIVATION, (IV) TO HELP ESTABLISHMENT OF COLD STORAGES, PACKING HOU SE AND PROCESSING FACTORIES CONCERNED TO LITCHI. (V) TO TAKE STEPS FOR THE PROMOTION OF TECHNICAL KNOW-H OW FOR THE PROPER MAINTENANCE, PACKING MARKETING ETC., TO THE LITCHI GROWERS. (VI) TO UNDERTAKE OR ASSIST IN UNDERTAKING PROGRAMMES FO R EMPLOYMENT GENERATION, GROWTH AND DIVERSIFICATION O F AGRICULTURE AND INDUSTRIES BASED ON LITCHI. (VII) TO ORGANIZE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER THROUGH, TRAINING A ND EXTENSION TO THE GROWERS. (VIII) TO PROMOTE ORGANIZATION OF MARKETING CHAINS BOTH FO R DOMESTIC AND EXPORT MARKETING OF LITCHI. (IX) TO BUILD A SKILLED CADRE FOR MANAGING THE LITCHI PLANTATIONS. (X) TO ACCELERATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF RAIN FED AND KANDI REGIONS THROUGH LITCHI. (XI) TO PROMOTE MEASURES FOR INCREASING THE UTILIZATION OF IRRIGATION POTENTIAL, WATER CONSERVATION AND ITS EF FICIENT MANAGEMENT. (XII) TO ORGANIZE/CATALYZE THE PRIMARY PRODUCERS OF LITCH I IN SUITABLE GROUPS TOWARDS THE PERFORMANCE OF ACTIVITI ES RELATED TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SOCIETY; (XIII) TO PAVE THE WAY FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INTEGRATED PRODUCERS' ORGANIZATIONS WITH FORWARD AND BACKWARD LINKAGES RELATED TO LITCHI, OTHER FRUITS AND VEGETA BLES. (XIV) TO PREPARE, PRINT AND PUBLISH PAPERS, PERIODICALS, MONOGRAPHS AND BOOKS ON LITCHI, OTHER FRUITS AND VEGETABLES IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SOCIETY. (XV) TO PROVIDE QUALITY NURSERY PLANTS, VARIOUS OTHER IN PUTS SUCH AS FERTILIZERS, INSECTICIDES/PESTICIDES, MACHI NERY' EQUIPMENT, PACKING MATERIAL ETC., EITHER DIRECTLY O R THROUGH AUTHORIZED SALE OUTLETS. FUNCTIONS (A) TO ADVISE THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING POLICY INITIATI VES IN RESPECT OF CITRUS CROPS AND INDUSTRY IN ORDER TO PR OMOTE CITRUS AND OTHER JUICING CROPS; (B) TO MAKE RULES AND BY-LAWS FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE A FFAIRS OF THE SOCIETY AND ADD TO, AMEND, VARY OR RESCIND THEM FROM TIME TO TIME; (C) TO ARRANGE FUNDS (CASH / KIND), GRANTS, GIFTS, DON ATIONS, BENEFACTIONS, FEES AND OTHER CHARGES, SECURITIES, P ROPERTY AND INFRASTRUCTURE OF ANY KIND, FROM, ANY DEPARTMEN T GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRY, NGQ, SOCIETY, INDIVIDUAL, ETC ; ITA NO.500/ASR/2016 (A.Y.2016 -17 ) THE LITCHI ESTATE, PATHANKOT VS. CIT(E) 4 (D) TO MEET THE EXPENSES WHICH THE SOCIETY MAY INCUR WI TH RESPECT TO THE FORMATION, REGISTRATION AND OPERATIO NS OUT OF THE FUNDS OF THE SOCIETY; (E) TO OPEN BANK ACCOUNTS OF ANY TYPE INCLUDING OVERDRA FT ACCOUNTS AND OPERATE THE SAME IN ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS; (F) TO OWN, ESTABLISH OR HAVE AND MAINTAIN OFFICES, BRA NCHES AND AGENCIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING ON ITS BUSINESS; G) TO PURCHASE, TAKE ON LEASE OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRE ANY LAND TO ESTABLISH CITRUS ORCHARDS / NURSERIES OR ANY LAND, BUILDI NG, INFRASTRUCTURE OR OTHER PROPERTY MOVABLE OR IMMOVABLE WHICH MAY BE OTHERWISE NECESSARY AND DEAL WITH, DISPOSE OFF OR W RITE OFF ANY PROPERTY OR LOSS THEREIN IN SUCH MANNER AS THE SOCIETY' MAY DEEM FIT (G) TO HIRE CONTRACTUAL STAFF FOR FIELD WORK, PROFESSIO NAL FOR ACCOUNTS, SECRETARIAL AND AUDIT WORK. (I) TO TAKE STAFF /EXPERTS ON DEPUTATION FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS, GOVERNMENTS INDUSTRY, ETC. OR AS CONTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY TO T HE SOCIETY, (J) TO OUTSOURCE THE OTHER ACTIVITIES, DAY TO DAY OPERA TIONS AS AND WHEN REQUIRED AND IN THE MANNER AS THE SOCIETY MAY DEEM FIT. (K) TO DO ALL OTHER SUCH THINGS AS THE SOCIETY MAY CONS IDER NECESSARY, INCIDENTAL OR CONDUCIVE TO THE ATTAINMEN TS OF ITS OBJECTIVES. 6. THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER DATED 29.07.20 16 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH, WHEREBY HE REJE CTED THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 12AA OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE LD. CIT(E) WHILE ISSUING THE NOTICE DATED 19.02.2016 AND THEREAFTER ANOTHER LETTER DATED 12.0 7.2016 WAS ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT IN ORDER TO CHECK THE SUITABI LITY OF THE APPLICATION AND TO SEEK FURTHER CLARIFICATION. THE APPE LLANT, IN RESPONSE TO THE AFORESAID NOTICES FILED DETAILED REPLY W HICH WAS ITA NO.500/ASR/2016 (A.Y.2016 -17 ) THE LITCHI ESTATE, PATHANKOT VS. CIT(E) 5 CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(E) AND THEREAFTER REJECTED T HE APPLICATION ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 7 . HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(E) WHILE REJECTING THE APPLICATION HAS OBSERVED FIRST OBSERVED THAT THE APPEL LANT HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING FOR NEARLY ABOUT FIVE YEARS SINCE IT S INCEPTION ON 9 TH MARCH, 2011, HOWEVER IT APPEARS FROM THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE APPELLANT'S PROJ ECT IS AT PRELIMINARY STAGE AND IS IN PROCESS TO COMMENCE ITS PRACTICAL ACTIVITIES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE FARMERS AND REGULAR LY MAKING SURVEYS AND LIAISON AMONG THE FARMERS OF THE AREA, STA TE AND CENTRAL GOVT. FOR OBTAINING GRANTS AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS, THEREFORE, AS THE PRACTICAL WORK WAS NOT COMMENCED SO NO EXPENDITURE WAS SHOWN IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE. IN OUR VIEW, THERE IS NO EMBARGO TO GRANT THE EXEMPTION TO NEWLY ESTABLISHED ENTITY IF IT HAS NOT DONE ANY ACTIVITY SINCE ITS INCEPTION, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF REJECTION DOES NOT SEEMS TO BE LOGICAL. 7.1 SECOND GROUND OF REJECTION WAS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED GRANT OF RS. 1 CRORES FROM THE GOVT. AND HAS D EPOSITED IN THE FORM OF FDR AND EARNED THE INTEREST. IN THIS CO NTEXT, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE CIT(E) HAS NOT RAISE D ANY QUERY IN THIS REGARD, HOWEVER IT IS THE FACT THAT THE APPE LLANT IS AT INITIAL STAGE AND TREATMENT TO GRANT IN-AID IS BEING DONE STRI CTLY ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTU RAL & CO- OPERATION, WHICH MANDATES THAT THE GRANTEE INSTITUTIO N SHOULD MAINTAIN SEPARATE AUDITED ACCOUNT FOR THE PROJECT AND I F IT IS FOUND EXPEDIENT TO KEEP A PART OR WHOLE OF THE GRAN T IN A BANK ACCOUNT EARNING INTEREST, THUS EARNED INTEREST SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE DEPARTMENT AND WILL BE TREATED AS A CREDIT TO THE GRANTEE ITA NO.500/ASR/2016 (A.Y.2016 -17 ) THE LITCHI ESTATE, PATHANKOT VS. CIT(E) 6 TO BE ADJUSTED TOWARDS FUTURE INSTALLMENTS OF THE GRAN T, THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT KEPT THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST ON FDR AS LIABILITY SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET AS THE SOCIETY HAS NO POWER TO SPEND IT UNTIL AND UNLESS IT WILL BE ADJUSTED IN THE F UTURE INSTALLMENTS OF GRANT IN AID. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION , THE GROUND OF REJECTION UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO LACKS MERIT AS THE APPELLANT HAS FOLLOWED THE GUIDELINES OF THE GOVT. APPLICABLE THERETO. 7.2 THIRD GROUND OF REJECTION WAS THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT SUBMITTED ANY COPY OF MOU WITH THE GOVT. IN SUPPORT OF GRANT IN- AID RECEIVED FROM THE GOVT. OF PUNJAB. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, IT IS DIFFICULT TO CORROBORATE THE RATIONALE BEHI ND THE GRANTS, TIME FRAME ACCORDED AND WHETHER THE SOCIETY HAS UTILIZED/MADE ATTEMPTS TO UTILIZE THE SAME WITHIN TH E STIPULATED TIME. ON SPECIFIC QUERY BY THE BENCH FOR NON-FURNISHING OF MOU, IT IS REVEALED THAT AS THE PROJECT IS OF THE STATE GOV T. QUA PROMOTION OF LITCHI CROPS, SO MOU IS NOT REQUIRED FOR OW N PROJECT OF STATE GOVT., HOWEVER IT IS A FACT THAT THE LD. CIT(E) DID NOT RAISE ANY QUERY QUA MOU AND THEREFORE IF THE OP PORTUNITY BE GIVEN TO PRODUCE THE SAME THEN THE APPELLANT UNDERTAK E TO SUBMIT THE SAID MOU IF ANY, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(E). 7.3 IN FOURTH GROUND OF REJECTION THE LD CIT(E) OBSERVED ABOUT THE CULTIVATION OF A LITCHI AND MADE CERTAIN R EMARKS THAT ONE CANNOT BUT EXCLAIM AT WHAT MAY HAPPEN IF THE POOR FARMERS GIVEN IN TO THE POSSIBILITY OF LUCRE ADOPT THESE CULTIVA TION PATTERNS THAT HAS IN-BUILT NECESSITIES OF MECHANIZATION A ND CROP FAIL. IN ADDITION THE APPLICANT HAS MADE A CLAIM WITH RESPECT TO PRESERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT (INCLUDING WATER-SHEDS, FO REST AND WILD LIFE). HOW THIS IS GOING BE ADJUSTED HAS NOT BEIN G BROUGHT OUT. ON THE CONTRARY IT IS WELL NIGH POSSIBLE THAT CULT IVATION ON A ITA NO.500/ASR/2016 (A.Y.2016 -17 ) THE LITCHI ESTATE, PATHANKOT VS. CIT(E) 7 LARGE SCALE MAY LEAD TO DEPLETION OF EXISTING FOREST CO VER. ADDITIONALLY, CLAIMING CULTIVATION TO MEAN PRESERVATIO N OF ENVIRONMENT SEEMS TO BE HYPERBOLE. FORM THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER, IT DOES NOT REFLECT THAT THE LD. CIT(E) HAS EV ER ASKED ANY CLARIFICATION QUA USE OF CULTIVATION OF LITCHI, HOWEVE R BY HIS OWN WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE MADE CERTAIN CASUAL OBSERVATIONS WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN. 7.4 FIFTH GROUND OF REJECTION RELATES TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE SOCIETY. AT THE TIME OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION THE CIT(E) IS REQUIRED TO SATISFY ABOUT THE OBJECTS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SOCIETY, THEREFORE IN OUR VIEW THIS GROUND OF REJECTIO N IS ALSO SEEMS TO BE CAUSAL OBSERVATION BUT NOT PLAUSIBLE. 8. AS PER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, THE PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION OF A TRUST OR INSTITUTION IS AS FOLLOWS: 12AA. (1) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER, ON RECEIPT OF AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF A TRUST OR INSTITUT ION MADE UNDER CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (AA) 8 [OR CLAUSE (AB)] OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 12A , SHALL (A) CALL FOR SUCH DOCUMENTS OR INFORMATION FROM T HE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AS HE THINKS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO SATI SFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AND MAY ALSO MAKE SUCH INQUIRIES AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY IN THIS BEHALF; AND (B) AFTER SATISFYING HIMSELF ABOUT THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AND THE GENUINENESS OF ITS ACTIVITIES, HE (I) SHALL PASS AN ORDER IN WRITING REGISTERING TH E TRUST OR INSTITUTION; (II) SHALL, IF HE IS NOT SO SATISFIED, PASS AN ORD ER IN WRITING REFUSING TO REGISTER THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION, AND A COPY OF SUCH ORDER SHALL BE SENT TO THE APPLICANT: PROVIDED THAT NO ORDER UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (II) SHALL BE PASSED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ITA NO.500/ASR/2016 (A.Y.2016 -17 ) THE LITCHI ESTATE, PATHANKOT VS. CIT(E) 8 9. ACCORDING TO PROVISO OF CLAUSE (B) OF CLAUSE (1) OF SECTI ON 12AA OF THE ACT, BEFORE PASSING AN ORDER FOR REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION, IT IS MANDATORY TO GIVE A REASONABLE OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPLICANT. THE PRINCIPLE OF AUDI ALTERM PARTEM , WHICH MANDATES THAT NO ONE SHALL BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD IS PART OF THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. NATURA L JUSTICE IS A GREAT HUMANIZING PRINCIPLE INTENDED TO INVEST THE LAW WITH FAIRNESS AND TO SECURE JUSTICE AND OVER THE YEARS IT HAS G ROWN INTO A WIDELY PERVASIVE RULE AFFECTING LARGE AREAS OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION. THE INQUIRY MUST ALWAYS BE DON E, WHETHER A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD HAS BEEN GIVEN OR NOT TO THE PERSON AFFECTED. 10. WHILE COMING TO INSTANT CASE, THE LD. CIT(E), VIDE LE TTER DATED 19-02-2016 SOUGHT REPLY FROM THE APPELLANT AND AGAIN VIDE LETTER DATED 12-07-2016 SOUGHT CERTAIN CLARIFICAT IONS AND THEREAFTER THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT WAS PERUSED AND THE APPLICATION U/S. 12AA WAS REJECTED ON VARIOUS REASONS WHIC H ARE SPECIFICALLY REPLIED BY THE APPELLANT BY FILING BRIEF SYNOPSIS. IT REFLECTS THAT AFTER RECEIVING REPLY FROM THE APPELLANT , NO OPPORTUNITY WAS ACCORDED TO THE APPELLANT QUA VARIOUS ISSUES AS HIGHLIGHTED BY US, EITHER FOR CONFRONTATION AND/OR FO R ESTABLISHING ITS CASE FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION BEFORE PASSING THE ORD ER IMPUGNED HEREIN, WHICH ACCORDING TO OUR CONSIDERED VIEW AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF RULE OF ' AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM ' HENCE ON THIS GROUND ALSO THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE CAN NOT SUR VIVE. IN CUMULATIVE EFFECT, TO FOLLOW THE RULE OF PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE AND IN ORDER TO END THE LITIGATION, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW J USTICE WOULD BE MET IF THE OPPORTUNITY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSEEEE TO PLEAD ITS CASE IN REASONABLE MANNER BEFORE THE LD CIT(E), HENCE I N THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE INCLINED TO SET ASI DE THE ITA NO.500/ASR/2016 (A.Y.2016 -17 ) THE LITCHI ESTATE, PATHANKOT VS. CIT(E) 9 ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE AND THEREFORE THE CASE IS REMANDE D BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(E) FOR DECIDING AFRESH IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS AND FURTHER ENQUIRY, REQUIRED I F ANY, AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD TO THE AP PELLANT WITHIN 03 MONTHS OF THIS ORDER. THE APPELLANT SHALL BE UNDER OBLIGATION TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(E) AND TO FILE ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AS WOULD BE DESIRABLE AS WELL AS POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER IMPUGNED HEREIN, AND IN FAILURE OF APPELLANT, THE LD. CIT(E) SHALL BE AT LIB ERTY TO DRAW THE ADVANCE INFERENCE, REQUIRED IF ANY. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12-02-2019. SD/- SD/- (N.S.SAINI) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER DATED:12.02.2019 /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE LITCHI ESTATE PATHANKOT O/O DEPUTY DIRECTOR HORTICULTURE, NEAR BEDI FILLING STATION, G.T. ROAD, PATHANKOT, DISTT. PATHANKOT. (2) THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH. (3) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER FILENAME: LITCHI ESTATE PATHANKOT, 500-16 DIRECTORY: D:\DOCUMENT\NKC ORDERS 2018\NS SAINI & N KC TEMPLATE: C:\USERS\ETC PARMOD\APPDATA\ROAMING\MICROSOFT\TEMPLATES\NORMAL.D OT TITLE: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SUBJECT: AUTHOR: RAHUL PRABHAKAR KEYWORDS: COMMENTS: CREATION DATE: 2/11/2019 6:58:00 PM CHANGE NUMBER: 16 LAST SAVED ON: 2/13/2019 1:08:00 PM LAST SAVED BY: ETC PARMOD TOTAL EDITING TIME: 76 MINUTES LAST PRINTED ON: 2/13/2019 1:08:00 PM AS OF LAST COMPLETE PRINTING NUMBER OF PAGES: 10 (APPROX.) NUMBER OF WORDS: 2,532 (APPROX.) NUMBER OF CHARACTERS: 14,439 (APPROX.)