THE LEARNING CURVE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI V. DIT (E), MUMBAI

ITA 6154/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 615419914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VANDANA SAGAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SHREYAS NIRANJAN S HAH
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

, ' INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - A,BENCH , , BEFORE S/SH. RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER & SANJAY GARG,JUDICIAL MEMBER /. ITA NO. 6154 /MUM/2013, ASSESSMET YEAR - 201 2 - 13 THE LEARNING CURVE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, G1/833, MAKLAI PALACE, B - WING CHS, BAZAR ROAD, BANDRA(W) MUMBAI - 400 050. PAN: AABTT 9873 D VS DIT (E XEMPTION) 6 TH FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS LALBAUG, PAREL MUMBAI - 400 012 . ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY :SHRI SHREYAS NIRANJAN S HAH / REVENUE BY :MS. VANDANA SAGAR / DATE OF HEARING : 08 - 0 9 - 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08 - 09 - 2015 , 1961 254 ( 1 ) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 28.8.2013 OF THE DIRECTOR OF I NCOME TAX (EXE MPTION),MUMBAI (DIT - E) THE ASSESSEE H A S RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT FOLLOW ARE ALL INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 2. THAT THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON T HE FACT OF THE CASE IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE TRUST FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT EVEN THOUGH THE SAID TRUST HAD COMPLIED WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PROVISION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN GENERAL AND PROVISION OF SECTI ON 12AA(1)(B)(II) AS WELL AS SECTION 12A OF THE SAID ACT. 3. THAT THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI FAILED TO REALIZE THAT THE EARLIER APPLICATION WAS REJECTED EX - PARTE AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED AT ALL. 4. THAT THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) ERRONEOUSLY CAME TO CONCLUSION THAT THE SECOND APPLICATION WAS 'AN ATTEMPT ON ITS PART TO SEEK REVIEW OF EARLIER ORDER OF REJECTION DATED 25 - 09 - 2012.' 5. THAT THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), FAILED TO CORRECTLY APPR ECIATE THAT THE SCHEME OF THE TRUST IS COMPLETELY CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND THAT NOT A SINGLE OBJECT OF THE TRUST IS IN NATURE OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. 6. YOUR APPELLANTS CRAVE LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, VARY, OMIT OR SUBSTITUTE THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR ADD A NEW GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL AS THEY MAY BE ADVISED. BRIEF FACTS: 2. THE ASSESSEE - TRUST HAD FILED AN AP PLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE ACT FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 27. 03 . 20 11 .VIDE HIS ORDER,DATED 25.12 .2012,PASSED U/S.12AA(1)(B)(II) R.W.S.12A OF THE ACT, THE THEN DIT - E REJECTED THE APPLICATION ON THE GROUNDS OF NON - COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS, EXISTENCE OF NON CHARITABLE/COMMERCIAL OBJECTS AND FAILURE TO EST ABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST. 6154 LEARNING CURVE 2 WHILE PROCESSING THE FRESH APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE ACT ,THE DIT - E ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON 12.3.2013 ASKING IT TO SHOW THE REASON AS TO WHY THE APPLICATION FILED BY IT SHO U LD NOT BE REJECTED. VIDE HIS LETTER, D T. 25. 03.2013, SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD FILED APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION ON 27.03.2012,THAT NOTICES ISSUED BY THE DIT - E WERE NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ,THAT AN EX - PARTE ORDER WAS PASSED ON 25.09.2012,THAT NOBODY WAS PRESENT AT THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE TRUST AT THE TIME WHEN NOTICES WERE SENT,THAT PART TIME STAFF DID NOT ATTEND THE OFFICE,THAT IT HAD MADE SUBSTANTIAL DISBURSEMENT OF SCHOLARSHIPS TO SEVERAL STUDENTS,THAT IT WAS NOT CARRYING OUT ANY COMME RCIAL ACTIVITY,THAT SCHOLARSHIP WAS GIVEN FOR HIGHER STUDIES,THAT IT HAD FILED FRESH APPLICATION.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ,THE DIT - E HELD THAT THE SECOND APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AN ATTEMPT ON ITS PART TO SEEK REVIEW OF EARLIER ORDER OF REJECTION,THAT IT WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE,THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.12.2012,THAT THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS, THAT THERE WAS NO REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE STAND TAKEN BY HIS PRE DECESSOR.REPRO DUCING THE PORTION OF THE ORDER,DATED 25.12 .2012,THE DIT - E REJECTED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . 3. BEFORE US,THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)ARGUED THAT THE EARLIER APPLICATION WAS REJECTED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED NECE SSARY DETAILS BEFORE THE DIT - E,THAT THE ORDER OF 25. 12.2012 WAS AN EX PARTE ORDER,THAT WITH THE FRESH APPLICATION ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS WERE FURNISHED,THAT THE DIT - E HAD NOT CONSIDERED ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS AND HAD FOLLOWED THE EARLIER ORDER.THE DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR)SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE DIT - E. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL. WE FIND THAT THE TRUST WAS CONSTITUTED BY THE TRUST DEED DATED 13.05.2011,THAT IT HAD FILED AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12(A)( A )OF THE ACT FOR THE AY.2012 - 13 ON 27.03.2012, THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED TO IT ON 13. 06.2012 AND 03.08.2012 WERE RETURNED BY THE P OSTAL AUTHORITIES AS UNCLAIMED, THAT THE DIT - E HAD REJECTED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR R EGISTRATION ON 25.09.2012, TH AT IT DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ORDER OF THE DIT - E BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL,THAT IT FILED A FRESH APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION, THAT THE DIT - E HELD THAT APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO REVIEW OF EARLIER ORDER OF REJECTION I.E.ORDER DATED 25.09.20 12,THAT THE DIT - E WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AS COMPARED TO THE FACTS OF THE LAST AY.,THAT HE REJECTED THE APPLICATION REPRODUCING THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2012.WE FIND THAT WHILE REJECTING THE APPEAL ON EARLIER OCCASION THE DIT HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED DETAILS ABOUT THE ACTIVITIES TO BE CARRIED OUT AND ABOUT THE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE SCHEME.HE WAS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE .IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE SCHEME TO THE DIT - E AND HAS CLAIMED THAT IT HAD MADE SUBSTANTIAL DISBURSEMENT OF SCHOLARSHIP TO STUDENTS.IT HAS ALSO GIVEN NOTE ON OBJECT OF TRUST.THE DIT - E HAD NOT CONSIDERED ALL THESE FACTORS WHILE REJECTING THE APPEAL.THEREFORE,WE ARE OF THE OPINION,THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE DIT - E FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL ON RECORED.HE IS DIRECT ED TO AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE .EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ,IN PART. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY AL LOWED. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH ,SEPTEMBER,2015. 8 , 2015 6154 LEARNING CURVE 3 SD/ - SD/ - ( / SANJAY GARG) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, /DATE: 0 8 .09.2015 . . . JV. SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR BENCH , ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI.