M/s Sunderlal Shiksha Sansthan, Indore V. The CIT - I, Indore

ITA 52/IND/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 54002 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN DEWAN
• Assessee Lawyers: P N DIXIT
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.52/IND/2011 A.Y. 2010-11 SUNDERLAL SHIKSHA SANSTHAN, INDORE PAN AADAS 0986 K ... APPELLANT VS CIT-I, INDORE ... RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.N. DIXIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ARUN DEWAN DATE OF HEARING : 3.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 4.11.2011 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 27.4.2011 OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX-I, 2 INDORE ON THE GROUND THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ERRE D IN: (A) PASSING AN ORDER U/S 12AA(1)(B)(II) REFUSING RE GISTRATION IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. (B) NOT GRANTING REGISTRATION TO THE APPELLANT ASSE SSEE U/S 12AA. (C) NOT PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. (D) NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE FULLY, TRULY AND IN AN OBJECTIVE MANNER. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, WE HAVE HEARD SHR I P.N. DIXIT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI AR UN DEWAN, LEARNED SR. DR. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASS ED WITHOUT APPRECIATION OF FACTS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CO NTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION TO THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT FOR INSPECTION OF RECORDS AND COPIES OF ORDER SHEET ENT RIES OF REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS. A PLE A WAS ALSO RAISED THAT NO PERSONAL BENEFIT WAS DERIVED BY THE MEMBERS OF 3 THE SOCIETY. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS IS THAT PROPER O PPORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE LD. SR. DR DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON FILE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOV E AND WITHOUT GOING INTO MERITS OF THE ORDER, WE REMAND THIS FILE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER PROVID ING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE WITH FUR THER LIBERTY TO FURNISH EVIDENCE, IF ANY, TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM . FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN IN THE PRESENCE O F LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH THE SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD SDP (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 4.11.2011 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE !VYAS!