Shri Raghuvanshi Social Group, JAMNAGAR V. The Commr. of Income Tax, JAMNAGAR

ITA 586/RJT/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6687 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-02-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KEVAL SOMECHA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH E COURT AT AHMEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.586/RJT/2008 SHRI RAGHUVANSHI SOCIAL GROUP C/O. SONECHA & AMLANI 101, SIDDHANATH COMPLEX KV ROAD, JAMNAGAR. VS THE CIT, JAMNAGAR. JAMNAGAR. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KEVAL SOMECHA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI YOGESH PANDE, CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 08/02/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23/02/2017 / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST O RDER OF THE LD.CIT, JAMNAGAR DATED 22.9.2008 PASSED UNDER SECTION 12AA( 1)(B)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN SEVEN GROUNDS OF APPEAL, OUT OF WHICH IN GROUND NO.6, IT HAS PLEADED THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER SECTI ON 12AA(1)(B)(II) OF THE ACT BY THE LD.COMMISSIONER. 3. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESNETATIVES, W E HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE-TRUST WAS CREATED ON 3.2.2004. IT WAS REGISTERED UNDER BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT WITH A SSISTANT CHARITY ITA NO.586/RJT/2008 2 COMMISSIONER. IT HAS APPLIED FOR GRANT OF REGISTRA TION UNDER SECTION 12AA(A) ON 3.3.2008. ACCORDING TO THE LD.COMMISSIONER, THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN MOVED AFTER FOUR YEARS OF ITS ENACTMENT. THE LD.CO MMISSIONER THEREAFTER OBSERVED THAT AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF PRECEDIN G THREE YEARS WERE NOT SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION WHICH IS A CON DITION REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED AS PER RULE 17A(B) OF THE INCOME TAX RULE S, 1962. 4. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT MAINLY APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED ON ACCOUNT OF NON-AVAILABILITY OF SUFFICIENT MATERIALS TO FIND OUT WHETHER ACTIVIT IES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE GENUINE AND ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE. IN OUR OPINI ON, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROVIDED DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING FOR SPECIFIC SU BMISSIONS OF PARTICULARS. ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER IS VERY BRIEF RUNNIN G INTO ONE PAGE ONLY, AND RELEVANT PART READS AS UNDER: [A] THE TRUST WAS NOT ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN ITS ACTIVITY IN THE INITIAL STAGE AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY-WITHIN THE PRESCR IBED TIME. [B] AS REGARDS FURNISHING PROOF OF ACTIVITIES, THE AR HAS CLAIMED THAT THE TRUST IS ENGAGED IN VARIOUS TYPES OF SOCIAL ACT IVITIES VIZ, BLOOD DONATION CAMP, EDUCATIONAL HELP TO NEEDY STUDENTS, MEDICAL RELIEF ETC. HOWEVER, NO CONCRETE PROOF THEREOF HAS BEEN FURNISH ED SAYING THAT THE SAME IS EVIDENT FROM THE COPIES OF AUDITED ACCOUNTS WHICH THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW-CAUSE L ETTER. 4. AS STATED EARLIER, THE APPLICANT TRUST DID NOT F URNISH ANY PROOF WITH REGARD TO THE ACTIVITIES, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SAME WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED-FOR. IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIMS OF THE APPLICANT TRUST, IT IS NOT ASCERTAINABLE AS TO WHET HER THE APPLICANT IS CARRYING OUT ANY SUCH ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE MENTIONE D IN THE TRUST-DEED: SIMILARLY, IT IS ALSO NOT ASCERTAINABLE AS TO WHETH ER THE ACTIVITIES, IF AT ALL, BEING UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPLICANT ARE CHARITAB LE IN NATURE AND ARE COVERED WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE U/S.2(15) OF THE IT. ACT OR NOT. THEREFORE, THE REGISTRATION SOUGHT IS H EREBY REFUSED U/S.12AA(L)(B)(II) OF THE IT.ACT, 1961. ITA NO.586/RJT/2008 3 AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE MATERIAL ON RE CORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET, IF WE PROVI DE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO BUTTRESS ITS CLAIM FOR GRANT OF REG ISTRATION WITH SUFFICIENT MATERIAL. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD.COMMISSION ER. THE ASSESSEE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO SUBMIT NECESSARY DETAILS CALLED FOR BY T HE LD.COMMISSIONER IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. THE LD.COMMISSIONER SHALL DE CIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. THE OBSERVATION MADE BY US WILL NOT IMPAIR OR IN JURE THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT AND WILL NOT CAUSE ANY PREJUDICE TO THE EXPLANATION/DEFENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2017 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER