H.A.M. Welfare & Development Charitable Organization, Nagina, Bijnor V. CIT(E), Lucknow

ITA 6403/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2821 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VINAY JAIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N.K.SAINI, AM AND SH. K.N.CHARY, JM ITA NO. 6403/DEL./20 16 : ASSTT. YEAR : H.A.M. WELFARE & DEVELOPMENT CHARITABLE C/O. HAZI ZAKIR HUSSAIN, NAGINA-KOTDWAR ROAD, KASBA RAIPUR SADAT, POST NAJIBABAD, TEHSIL NAGINA BIJNOR PAN: AABTH4702M VS CIT(E) T-46 V, U.P.STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, VIBHUTI KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR LUCKNOW (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAATZ0343F APPELLANT BY : SH. VI NAY JAIN, CA RESPONDENT BY : SH. MUNISH KUMAR GUPTA, CIT, DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.12.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.12.2017 ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2016 OF THE CIT(E), EXEMPTION LUCKNOW. ONLY GROUND RAISE D IN THIS APPEAL READS AS UNDER : ITA NO.6403/DEL/2016 2 1. REJECTING APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS ABSOLUTELY UNJUSTIFIED AND INJUSTICE BECAU SE ALL THE RELATED DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY HIM WERE PRESENTED BEFORE BUT THEY OVER LOOK OF ALL THESE PRESENTATIONS AND STAND ON THE FIXED TECHNICAL LANG UAGE FOR REJECTION. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(E) DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF TH E ASSESSEE FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REF ERRED TO AS THE ACT) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE AS SESSEE AND WITHOUT PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 3. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSION, THE LD. DR SUPPOR TED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(E). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE, THE LD. CIT(E) WHILE DISMISSING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED AS UNDER : 2. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE APPLICANT SOCIETY WAS ACCORDE D AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER F. NO. CIT(EXEM P.)/LKO/12A/2016-17/5765 DATED 01.09.2016 SENT TO THE APPLICANT ON ADDRESS P ROVIDED BY HIM VIA SPEED POST (BEARING NO. EU648611467IN), CALLING FOR SPECI FIC QUERIES REGARDING ITS APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A FOR COMPLIANCE ON 15.09.2016, WHICH HAS BEEN DULY DELIVERED TO THE APPLICANT ON 14.09.2016, NO ONE APPEARED NOR WAS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT RECEIVED. IN THE IN TEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE APPLICANT SOCIETY WAS ACCORDED ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER F.NO. CIT(EXEMPT.)/LKO/12A/2016-17/61 40 DATED 16.09.2016 SENT TO THE APPLICANT ON ADDRESS PROVIDED BY HIM VIA SPE ED POST (BEARING NO. EU648627983IN), CALLING FOR SPECIFIC QUERIES REGARD ING ITS APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A FOR COMPLIANCE ON 10.10.2016. HOWEVER. HOWEVER ON THAT DATE I.E. 10.10.2016, NO ONE APPEARED NOR WAS ANY A PPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT RECEIVED. HOWEVER ON 19.10.2016, SHRI ZAKIR HUSSAIN , TRUSTEE APPEARED AND FILED PART OF REPLY. THE APPLICANT COULD NOT PROVID E ANY DETAILS REGAR4DING ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN BY IT. NO BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS OR REQUISITE VOUCHERS COULD BE PROVIDED THAT COULD ESTABLISH THE CLAIMS O F THE APPLICANT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF CHARITY THAT CAN BE DECIPHERED FROM THE AMTERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 5. FROM ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(E) IT IS CLEAR THAT HE HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD. HE SIMPLY STATED ITA NO.6403/DEL/2016 3 THAT THE ONE OF THE TRUSTEE OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST A PPEARED ON 19.10.2016 AND FILED PART OF REPLY. IN THE PRESENT CASE WHEN THE L D. CIT(E) HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT PART OF REPLY WAS FILED THEN IN OUR OPINION, OPPO RTUNITY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE REQUIRED DETAI LS AND THE EXPLANATION BEFORE REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A( A) OF THE ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR AS TO HOW THE LD. CIT(E) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION (IN THE ABSENCE OF THE COMPLETE DETAILS AND REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE) THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF CHARITY THAT CAN BE DECIPHERED FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, PARTICULARLY WHEN HE HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT COMPLETE REPLY WAS NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(E ) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/12/2017). SD/- SD/- (K.N.CHARY) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 22/ 12/2017 *B.RUKHAIYAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGI STRAR ITA NO.6403/DEL/2016 4 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 20.12.2017 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 21.12.2017 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 22.12.2017 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.