Gurukul Vaidik Foundation Samiti, J.P. Nagar V. Commissioner of Income Tax (E), Lucknow

ITA 669/LKW/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123032 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHEELA CHOPRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.669/Lkw/2019 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Gurukul Vaidik Foundation Samiti Trustee, Kamelpur Road, PAN: AABAG 0553E Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow [hereinafter called the CIT(E)], wherein, vide the impugned order, the ld. CIT(E) has rejected the assessee’s application for registration u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). Appellant by Ms. Shweta Mittal, CA Respondent by Smt. Sheela Chopra, CIT (DR) Date of hearing 13/09/2023 Date of pronouncement 26/09/2023 I.T.A. No.669/Lkw/2019 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed application for registration u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act on 18.09.2018. The ld. CIT(E) called for a report from the concerned Assessing Officer along with the comments of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) and the assessee was also given an opportunity of being heard. The notice requiring the assessee to respond to specific queries vis- à-vis application for registration was returned unserved. Subsequently, another opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee society and the date fixed for compliance was 16.05.2019. The assessee sought adjournment on this date and subsequently, third notice for hearing was issued fixing the date of hearing on 19.08.2019. This third notice was again not delivered and was returned with the postal comments ‘addressee cannot be located’. In view of this factual matrix, the ld. CIT(E) was of the view that the material available on record was not sufficient to establish the assessee’s fulfillment of requirements for registration u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act and the ld. CIT(E) proceeded to reject the assessee’s application. I.T.A. No.669/Lkw/2019 3 3. Aggrieved, the assessee has approached this Tribunal, challenging the rejection by the ld. CIT(E) by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT (Exemption) erred in law and on facts on both rejecting the approval u/s 10(230) (vi). 2. The Ld. CIT (Exemption) erred in law and on facts in not considering the written submissions and relevant evidences filed 3. The Ld. CIT (Exemption) erred in Law and on facts for not granting any proper opportunity to the assessee for putting its stand before him. 4. Any other ground of appeal which may be raised during the course of hearing of appeal.” 4.0 At the outset, the ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the appeal had been filed belatedly by one day. She drew our attention to the application for condonation of delay in this regard and submitted that the delay had occurred due to mistake on the part of the Clerk of the concerned Chartered Accountant who had put the address of the Income Tax Department on the envelope containing the appeal memo etc. instead of the address of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The copy of the envelope, which had been addressed wrongly, has also been enclosed as a proof in this regard. The ld. I.T.A. No.669/Lkw/2019 4 Authorized Representative prayed that since the delay was unintentional, the delay may kindly be condoned. 5.0 Per contra, ld. Senior D.R. had no objection to the delay being condoned. 6.0 Having heard both the parties, we condone the delay of one day and admit the appeal for the purpose of regular hearing. 7.0 The ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the application of the assessee for registration had been dismissed ex-parte as the notices of hearing were not served on the assessee. She submitted that the assessee may kindly be provided with another opportunity to present its case before the ld. CIT(E). 8.0 Per contra, ld. CIT(DR) had no objection to the prayer of ld. Authorized Representative. 9.0 Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the records and facts of the case, we restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(E) with the direction to adjudicate the issue afresh after providing proper opportunity to the assessee I.T.A. No.669/Lkw/2019 5 in this regard. We also direct the assessee to fully comply with the notices to be issued by the ld. CIT(E) in the set aside proceedings. 10.0 In the final result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2023) Sd/- Sd/- ( ANADEE NATH MISSHRA ) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 26/09/2023 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 Asstt. Registrar