MONEY MATTERS FOUNDATION, MUMBAI V. DIT (E), MUMBAI

ITA 5489/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75917 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRITAM SINGH
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B B ENCH, MUMBAI , , ! '# $ $ $ $ , % && '# ' BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, AM AND SHRI SANJAY GA RG, JM ./ I.T.A. NO.5489/MUM/2012 ( ( ( ( ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 M/S. MONEY MATTERS FOUNDATION, 10B, COURT CHAMBERS, 1 ST FLOOR, SIR VITHALDAS THACKERSEY MARG, 35, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME- TAX(EXEMPTIONS) PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL, MUMBAI-400 012 #) ! ./ %* ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AACTM 3975A ( )+ / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-)+ / RESPONDENT ) )+ . / APPELLANT BY: SHRI VIJAY MEHTA ,-)+ / . / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PRITAM SINGH / 01! / DATE OF HEARING :27.03.2014 23( / 01! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.03.2014 '4 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE DIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI DT.29.6.2012 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2012-13. 2. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE D IT(EXEMPTION) HAS WRONGLY REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U /S. 12AA OF THE ACT WITHOUT GIVING APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY AND IGNORING ALL MERITS OF THE CASE. ITA NO. 5489/M/12 2 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US STRON GLY SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE DIT (EXEM) FOR REJECTING T HE APPLICATION WERE NEVER CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN PROPER OPPORT UNITY TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE DIT(EXEM.). IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE DIT (EXEM) HAS WRONGLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ACTIVITIE S OF THE TRUST CANNOT BE PUT TO THE TEST OF GENUINENESS. THE DIT (EXEM.) HAS PROCEEDED IN HASTE AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUP PORTED THE ORDER OF THE DIT(EXEM.). 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE DIT ( EXEM). THE DIT(EXEM) HAS OBSERVED THAT ONE OF THE TRUSTEES OF THE IMPUGNED TRUST SHRI RAJESH SHARMA ALSO HAPPENS TO BE THE C.M.D. OF M/S. MONEY MATTERS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. HE FURTHER OBSERV ED THAT SHRI RAJESH SHARMA HAS BEEN CHARGE SHEETED BY THE CENTRAL BUREA U OF INVESTIGATION IN THE MULTI CRORE KICK BACKS FOR SCAM AND FRAUD AND A LSO UNDER THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT. THE DIT (EXEM) FURTHE R OBSERVED THAT THE ENTIRE INFLOW OF FUNDS FOR THE TRUST IS FROM M/S. M ONEY MATTERS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD AND AT PARA-4 HE CONCLUDED THAT SINCE THE MATTER IS GETTING BARRED BY LIMITATION, THE APPLICATION IS DISPOSED O F ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AS NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITY CAN BE AFFORDED TO THE APPLICANT. 6. A PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL BEFORE US SHOWS THAT F IRST NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 9.3.2012 BY WHICH THE DIT(EXEM) ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS/DETAILS. THE SAID QUESTIONNAIRE W AS COMPLIED VIDE LETTER DT. 31.3.2012, WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE OFF ICE OF THE DIT (EXEM) ITA NO. 5489/M/12 3 ON 2.4.2012. THE REMAINING DETAILS WERE FILED ON 1 7.4.2012. THE DIT (EXEM) FURTHER SOUGHT CLARIFICATION ON CERTAIN POIN TS VIDE HIS NOTICE DT. 24.5.2012, REPLY WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LET TER DT. 28.5.2012. A PERUSAL OF ALL THESE NOTICES AND REPLIES STATED HER EINABOVE SUPPORTS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSEE TRU ST WAS NEVER ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILS/REPLIES FOR THE REASONS ON WHICH TH E DIT (EXEM) HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION. 7. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THIS ISSUE NE EDS READJUDICATION. WE, ACCORDINGLY, RESTORE THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FI LES OF THE DIT (EXEM). THE DIT (EXEM) IS DIRECTED TO ISSUE PROPER SHOW CAU SE NOTICE ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD. THE DIT (EXEM) IS ALSO EXPECTED TO SPECIFY THE REASONS ON WHICH HE WANTS CLARIFICATION FROM THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSU E AFRESH ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH MARCH, 2014 . '4 / 3( ! 5 6'7 27.3.2014 3 / & SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) '# /JUDICIAL MEMBER ! '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 6' DATED 27.3.2014 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS ITA NO. 5489/M/12 4 '4 '4 '4 '4 / // / ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 8(0 8(0 8(0 8(0 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. )+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-)+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 9 / CIT 5. :& ,0 , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. &; < / GUARD FILE. '4 '4 '4 '4 / BY ORDER, -0 ,0 //TRUE COPY// = == = / > > > > % % % % (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI