Janhit Shiksha Samiti, Lucknow V. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 59/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4426 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-04-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NEIL JAIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.59/LKW/2016 CIT(EXEMPTIONS) LUCKNOW VS JANHIT SHIKSHA SAMITI LUCKNOW PAN AAAAJ 1412 E (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI YOGESH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI NEIL JAIN , DR RESPONDENT BY 18 /04/2015 DATE OF HEARING 27/05/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JM. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW DATED 01.02.2016. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: - I. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW [HERE-IN-AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE LD. CIT] ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE GRANT OF APPRO VAL UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE IT. ACT, 1961 AND IN HOLDING THAT THE SOCIETY IS NOT SOLELY FOR THE EDUC ATIONAL PURPOSES AND THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR IF THE SOCIETY S APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY. II. THE LD. CIT GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REFUSING TO GRANT APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) TO THE APPELLANT SOCIETY AND IN NOT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLA NT SOCIETY TO HAVE ITS SAY OR MAKE ITS SUBMISSIONS ON THE MERITS DESPITE THE FACT THAT ALMOST THREE MONTHS WE RE AVAILABLE FOR PASSING THE ORDER AND FURTHER IN HOLD ING THAT NOBODY ATTENDED ON THE DATES OF HEARING WHICH WAS O NLY 2 ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE NOTICES OF HEARING WERE NOT RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT SOCIETY. III. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE PECULIAR CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE PRESET CASE THE LD. CIT WAS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE SOCIETY CANNOT BE VE RIFIED AND EXPENSES SO CLAIMED ARE NOT OPEN TO VERIFICATIO N HENCE APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE OUR A CASE FOR GRANT O F APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI). IV. `THE LD. CIT FURTHER GROSSLY ERRED ON FACT S AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT SOCIETY FAILED TO PRODUC E ANY COGENT EVIDENCE REGARDING CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES DUR ING THE COURSE OF HEARING WHEREAS ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE BUT NO OPPORTUNITY AT ALL WAS AFFORDED TO IT TO PRODUCE THE SAME AND THE ORDER SO PASSED IS BAD-IN- LAW AND VOID-AB-INITIO AND THUS NEEDS TO BE QUASHED AND THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT. V. THE LD. CIT DID NOT GIVE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT SOCIETY TO HAVE ITS SAY OR MAKE NECESSARY COMPLIANC E TO THE REASONS RELIED UPON BY HIM IN REJECTING THE APP LICATION U/S 10(23C)(VI)AND FURTHER IN NOT GIVING DUE AND SU FFICIENT IMPORTANCE TO THE DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE HIM AND TH US THE ORDER MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE AND APPROVAL GRAN TED U/S 10(23C)(VI). 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SOCIETY HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 10(23C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 ON 20.04.2015 WITH THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS AC CORDED AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BY THE CIT AND NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE APPLICA NT BUT NO ONE APPEARED BEFORE CIT. THE CIT HAS REJECTED THE REGISTRATION U/S 10(2 3C) OF THE ACT. 4. LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS NOT PROVIDED BY LD. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) AND THEREFORE, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO HIS FILE FOR A FRESH DECISION AFTER ALLOWIN G REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT (EXEMPT IONS). 3 6. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(E XEMPTION) IN THE LIGHT OF OTHER EVIDENCE PLACED BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT THE C IT(EXEMPTION) HAS RECORDED HIS CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BILL S AND VOUCHERS ETC. WERE PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION, THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE SAME. NOW THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT HE HAS PLACED ALL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE ACTIVITI ES OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF CONTRARY ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THIS MATTER SHOULD BE DECIDED AFRESH BY THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS). WE THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE FOR A FRESH DECISION AFTER ALLOWING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- SD/- (P.K. BANSAL) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER DATED: 27/05/2016 AKS 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 AS STT. REGISTRAR