Kutch Tamil Welfare Association, GANDHIDHAM V. The Income Tax Officer,Ward 1, GANDHIDHAM

ITA 59/RJT/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 5924914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAI RAJ KUMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI A.L. GEHLOT (AM) I.T.A. NO.59/RJT/2011 KUTCH TAMIL WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS CIT-I, RAJKOT / ITO, WD.1 PLOT NO.10, SEC.1A GANDHIDHAM 90, YUVRAJ ENTERPRISE GANDHIDHAM (KUTCH) 370 201 PAN : AABTK6148A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI KALPESH DOSHI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JAI RAJ KUMAR O R D E R PER AL GEHLOT, AM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 26- 11-2010 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-I, RAJKOT REFUSING REGISTRATION U/S 12A(A) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A(A) ON 06-05-2010 IN FORM 10A. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VIDE HIS LETTE R DATED 04-11-2010 ASKED THE ASSESSEE TRUST TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE REGARDIN G EXPENSES INCURRED TOWARDS THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. THE DETAILS WERE REQUIRE D TO BE SUBMITTED BY 19-11- 2010. THE LETTER SENT WAS RETURNED UNSERVED. THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, REJECTED THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION. 3. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE WAS RETURNED UNSERVED AS ON THAT DAY THE OFFICE OF THE TRUST WAS CLOSED. THE TRUST WAS REGISTERED ON 14-01-2010. THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE VERY LITTLE TIME WAS LEFT, THERE WERE NO ACTIVITIES AS SUCH. GENERALLY A TRUST CAN CARRY ON THE ACTIVI TIES ONLY ON REGISTRATION AND 80G(5) CERTIFICATE AS DONORS GENERALLY INSIST ON AV AILABILITY OF SUCH CERTIFICATE. IT IS ALSO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.AR THAT AFTER RECEIVI NG MESSAGE FROM THE OFFICE OF ITA NO.59/RJT/2011 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ON 24-11-2010 THE AS SESSEE SENT THE INFORMATION ON 26-11-2010 BUT BY THAT TIME, THE COM MISSIONER HAS PASSED HIS ORDER REFUSING THE REGISTRATION. THE LD.DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE APPLICATION. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES, RECORD PERUSED. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD I NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. I, THEREFORE, THINK PROPER TO SEND BACK THIS MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-I, RAJKOT WI TH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS T REATED AS ALLOWED, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05-04-2011. SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER RAJKOT, DT : 05 TH APRIL, 2011 PK/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-I, AHMEDABAD 4. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, RAJKOT