SHRI RAJVIR SINGH ANTARRASHTRIYA PAHALWAN WELFARE SOCIETY, V. CIT(EXEMPTION), Lucknow

ITA 579/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 57923714 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.579/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: N.A. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW. VS SHRI RAJVIR SINGH ANTA RRASHTRIYA PAHALWAN WELFARE SOCIETY, B-1, BASANT BAGH, HATHRAS U.P. PAN:AANTS1019C (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI RAJVIR SINGH, APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D. R. RESPONDENT BY 19/10/2015 DATE OF HEARING 31/12/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW DATED 10/07/2015 U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE ACTION OF THE CIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW BY REJECTING THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR REGISTRATIO N U/S 12A (A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND PARTICULARS O F APPELLANT SOCIETY AND WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD IS UNJUST, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE NA TURAL LAW AND JUSTICE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESS EE THAT AS PER THE ORDER OF CIT, ONE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT FIXING THE D ATE OF HEARING ON 09/07/2015 BUT THIS NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, NONE APPEARED BEFORE LEARNED CIT AND HE PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER EX- PARTE ON 10/07/2015. HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO HIS FILE F OR FRESH DECISION AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 2 4. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS NOTED BY LEARNED CIT THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A ON 05/01/2015 BUT ONLY ONE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY LEARNED CIT ON DATED 24/06/2015 FIXING TH E DATE OF HEARING ON 09/07/2015 AND WHEN NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS DATE, HE HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON 10/07/2015 BY S TATING THAT THE APPLICATION IS GETTING TIME BARRED ON 31/07/2015. WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN THE APPLICATION IS TO BE DISPOSED OF WITHIN SI X MONTHS THEN FOR WHAT REASONS, THE FIRST NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY LEARNED CIT ONLY ON 24/06/2015 WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 05/01/ 2015. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE FEEL THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO LEARNED C IT FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GAROD IA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER DATED:31/12/2015 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR