Tamilnadu Maritime Academy, Tuticorin V. ITO, Tirunelveli

ITA 53/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8173 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 12A; 11

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI , ! ' , # $% & [ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD , JUDICIAL MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO. 53/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 TAMILNADU MARITIME ACADEMY 333, SOUTH BEACH ROAD TUTICORIN 628 001 VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFI CER WARD I(1) TUTICORIN [PAN AABAT 2857 Q ] ( '( / APPELLANT) ( ')'( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI PHILIP GEORGE, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 16 - 12 - 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 - 01 - 2016 * / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, MADURA I, DATED 5.11.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF A PPEAL: 1.THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS)-L, MADURAI IS UNJUST, OPPOSED TO LAW AND CONTRARY TO T HE FACTS OF CASE. ITA NO. 53/15 :- 2 -: 2.THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT U/S 12A(2) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, THE PROVISIONS OF SE C 11 AND 12 APPLIES FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH DATE OF APP LICATION FOR REGISTRATION IS MADE. THE EFFECTIVE DATE MENTIONED IN REGISTRATION ORDER U/S 12A IS NOT RELEVANT. 3.THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS A STATE GOVERNMENT CONSTI TUTED BODY AND SATISFIES ALL THE CONDITIONS FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAB) AND ITS INCOME IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION FROM TAX. 4.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON THE ACTIVITIES WITH PROFIT MOTIVE MERELY BECAUSE THE AC TIVITIES RESULT IN SURPLUS. HENCE THE ORDER IS VITIATED. 5.CIT(A) PASSED THE ORDER BASED ON THE REPORT RECEI VED FROM ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE AND HENCE THE ORDER IS NOT SUSTAIN ABLE AND BAD IN LAW. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE REMAND REPORT CALLED FOR BY THE CIT(A) FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT PUT BEFORE THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS COMMENTS AND THEREFORE, THERE IS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. AS SUCH, CONSIDERING THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES COU NSEL, IN OUR OPINION, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE ENTIRE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE SAME AFRESH AND DECIDE IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL NO T BE INFLUENCED BY THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AND HE SHAL L DECIDE THE ISSUE INDEPENDENTLY AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 53/15 :- 3 -: 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND JANUARY, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' ) ( CHALLA NAGENDRA RASAD) # / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER !' / CHENNAI #$ / DATED: 22 ND JANUARY, 2016 RD $%&& '(&)( / COPY TO: & 1 . / APPELLANT 4. & * / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. (+,& - / DR 3. & *&./ / CIT(A) 6. ,0&1 / GF