Guru Ramchandra Prakashan Samiti, JALORE V. CIT-II, JODHPUR

ITA 550/JODH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74914 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-03-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR DEEPAK SEHGAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JODHPUR BENC H : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 550/JODH/2013 GURU RAMCHANDRA PRAKASHAN SAMITI, VS. CIT-II, JOD HPUR. C/O GHEWARCHAND JAIN & CO., SHIVAJI NAGAR, JALORE. PAN NO. AABTG 8488 R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN DEPARTMENT BY : DR. DEEPAK SEHGAL - D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 04/03/2014. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04/03/2014. O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, A.M THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 10/10/2013 OF LD. CIT-II, JODHPUR. THE FOLLOWING G ROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED CIT II, JODHPUR ERRED IN EYE OF LA W AND FACT IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A(A) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST. 2. THAT THE CHARITABLE TRUST WAS FORMED AS PER LAW AND APPLICATION WAS ALSO SUBMITTED AS PER RULES. 2 3. ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS INCLUDING ACCOUNT COPIE S AND THE EXPENSES VOUCHERS FOR AMOUNT SPENT FOR THE OBJECTS OF THE TR UST WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 12/0 8/2013. 4. THERE IS NO BAD IN LAW IN RUNNING TRUST FROM A P RIVATE HOUSE I.E. IN HOUSE OF MADANLAL. THERE IS NO RULE FOR COMPULSORY SIGN BOARD. THE ACTUAL COMMENCEMENT OF CHARITABLE ACTIVITY IS ALSO NOT A MATERIAL FACT FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A(A). THOUGH SOME C HARITABLE ACTIVITIES WERE CONDUCTED BY THE TRUST AND NECESSARY EVIDENCE IS ON RECORD OF ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT, WHICH IS CLEAR FR OM THE LETTER DATED 12/09/2013 SUBMITTED BEFORE CITII. MOREOVER THE M AIN REASON FOR REJECTION WAS SO CALLED REPORT OF INSPECTOR AND NON -RECOMMENDATION OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THESE REPORTS WERE NEVER SHO WN TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND AS SUCH THESE CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THIS M ATTER. MOREOVER THE REPORT GIVEN BY THE INSPECTOR IS AGAINST THE FA CTUAL POSITION AND SAME IS NOT RELIABLE. 5. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT AN UNDERTAKING ON 17/09/2013, WHICH WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DESIRED. TH ERE WAS NO QUERY FOR COMPLIANCE ON THAT DATE. HENCE REJECTION OF TH IS GROUND IS NOT VALID AT ALL. 6. NO SPECIFIC & PROPER OPPORTUNITY AS PROVIDED BY THE LAW WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE REJECTING HIS APPLICATION FO R REGISTRATION. 7. ANY OTHER AND ALTERNATIVE GROUND OF APPEAL MAY K INDLY BE ALLOWED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 2 THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE REJECTION OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SEC TION 12A(A) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT IN SHORT) WITHOUT GIVING PROPER AND SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE FILED AN APPLICATION ON 14/05/2013 ALONG WITH FORM NO. 10A F OR REGISTRATION UNDER 3 SECTION 12A(A) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT ASKED THE A SSESSEE TO FURNISH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:- (I) NOTES ON CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT SINC E INCEPTION OF THE TRUST. (II) PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS/DOCUMENTS MAINTA INED BY THE TRUST. (III) COMPLETE DETAILS OF DONATION RECEIVED BY THE TRUST DURING LAST 3 YEARS. 4. LD. CIT ALSO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT AN UNDER TAKING WITH RESPECT TO TRUST TO BE DISSOLVED IN A TRUST PREVIOU SLY REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A(A) OF THE ACT AND ALL THE ASSETS OF THE TRUST WILL BE MERGED IN THAT TRUST ONLY. LD. CIT REJECTED THE APPLICATION SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR ON 17/09/2013. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REPORT HAD NOT RECOMMENDED FOR REGISTRATION. N OW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 5. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TH E APPLICATION WAS REJECTED WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THIS FACT THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSES SEE WERE CHARITABLE IN NATURE. 6 . IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, LD. CIT D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT. 4 7 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE LD. CIT REJECTED THE APPL ICATION ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS REPORT, WHO STATED IN HIS R EPORT AS UNDER:- ON SPOT ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE INSPECT OF THIS WARD, IT IS NOTICED THAT TRUST RUNS IN THE HOUSE OF SHRI MADANLAL AND THERE IS NO SIGN BOARD AND NO CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES HAS FOUND AS CONDUCTED BY THE TRUST. NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO HIM. CONSIDERING THE F ACT AND INSPECTOR REPORT, REGISTRATION U/S 12A IS NOT RECOMMENDED. 8 . FROM THE ABOVE REPORT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER RELIED ON THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR AND DID NOT MAKE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY HIMSELF. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS ALSO NOTICED T HAT THE LD. CIT NOWHERE COMMENTED ON THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHET HER THOSE WERE CHARITABLE IN NATURE OR NOT. WE, THEREFORE, CONSID ERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO TH E ASSESSEE. 9 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04 TH MARCH, 2014). SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 4 TH MARCH, 2014. 5 VR/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD.CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, JODHPUR.