Jan Pragati, Lucknow V. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Lucknow

ITA 628/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0728 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-06-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIVEK MISHRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 80G; 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.628/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:N.A. C.I.T. - II, LUCKNOW. VS M/S JAN PRAGATI, 1/37, RAJNI KHAND, SHARDA NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:AABTJ5333L (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI ALOK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI VIVEK MISHRA, C.I.T., D. R. RESPONDENT BY 25/06/2015 DATE OF HEARING 24 /07/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT - II, LUCKNOW DATED 28/05/2015 PASSED BY HIM U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER AMENDED GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCE IN THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II LUCKNOW IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTION THE APPLICATION FILLED BY THE APPLICANT TRUST FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2. THA T VARIES OBSERVATION MADE BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOR REJECTION OF THE REGISTRATION OF APPLICANT OF REGISTRATION ARE CONTRARY TO THE FACT ON RECORDS AND THEREFORE THE ORDER PASSED U/S 12AA IS NOT TENABLE IN LAW. 2 3. WHEREFORE IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THE APPELLANT MAY BE GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12A AND 80G IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPELLANT SHALL EVER PRAY AS IN DUTY OF BOND. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LEAR NED CIT IS CRYPTIC WITHOUT ANY FINDING THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST ARE NOT CHARITABLE OR THAT ACTIVITIES ARE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY AND MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS HAVING MORE THAN 100 OBJECT S AND THE ACT IVITIES TAKEN SO FAR ARE SMALL, THE REGISTRATION CANNOT BE DENIED. 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE BASIS OF THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT IS THAT ON PERUSAL O F T HE ASSESSEE SOCIETYS MEMORANDUM, IT IS SEEN THAT THERE ARE MORE THAN 100 OBJECTS UNDER 25 MAJOR HEADS BUT AS PER PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012 - 13, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INCURRING FUNDS FOR ACHIEVING ITS DECLARED OBJECTIVE. WE FIND THAT THE INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDING AS ON 31/03/2013 IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 42 OF THE PAPER BOOK AS PER WHICH, THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS RECEIVED GENERAL DONATION OF RS.1.02 LAC AND FEEDING PROGRAMME DONATION OF RS.0.24 LAC IN ADDITION TO BANK INTEREST INCOME OF RS.602/ - ONLY AND IN THIS YEAR , THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.0.28 LAC ON FEEDING PROGRAMME EXPENSES AND SOME SMALL AMOUNT HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR SLUM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT EXPENSES INCURRED ON MAINTENANCE OF SOC IETY SUCH AS OFFICE EXPENSES, SALARY ETC. SINCE THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS WITH THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS SMALL, THE ACTIVITIES CANNOT BE BIG AND THAT CANNOT BE BASIS FOR DENYING REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THERE IS NO FINDING GIVEN BY LEARNED CIT AS TO WHETHER ANY ACTUAL ACTIVITY WAS UNDERTAKEN OR NOT IN RESPECT OF FEEDING PROGRAMME EXPENSES. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, WE FEEL IT PROPER THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT FOR FRESH DECISION AND HE 3 SHOULD PASS A SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER AND ACCORDINGLY , WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION. HE SHOULD PASS NECESSARY ORDER AS PER LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS ORDER SHOULD B E SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER. 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. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 24 /07/2015 *C.L.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