SARADR JOGINDER SINGH CHARITABLE TRUST, FEROZEPUR V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

ITA 676/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9782 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK KUMAR LD
• Assessee Lawyers: J S BHASIN LD
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 676/ASR/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: NIL SARDAR JOGINDER SINGH CHARITABLE TRUST, JOGINDER GARH, VILL. BADHNI GULAB SINGH, FEROZEPUR. VS. CIT(EXEMPTIONS) CHANDIGARH. [PAN:AAJAS 5628Q] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. J.S. BHASIN (LD. ADV.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. ALOK KUMAR (LD. CI T- DR) DATE OF HEARING: 17.12.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.12.2019 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE APPELLAN T SOCIETY AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2019 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH, U/S 12AA(1)(B)(II) OF T HE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT). 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY THAT THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATIO N U/S 12AA OF THE ACT WAS FILED ON 09.03.2019 BY MENTIONING THE FACT TH AT THE APPELLANT SOCIETY IS AN ONGOING ENTITY AND IS IN OPERATION SINCE 0 6.11.2011. THE SAID APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT WAS TAKEN INTO CONSID ERATION AND QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED THROUGH ONLINE PORTAL ON 30.0 4.2019, WITH THE REQUEST TO THE APPELLANT PROVIDE CLARIFICATIONS TO THE QUERIES RAISED ITA N0.676/ASR/ 2019 SARDAR JOGINDER SINGH CHARITABLE TRUST VS . CIT(E) 2 ON 12.09.2019, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THE REPLY ON ITBA ON 16.09.2019. THEREAFTER, THE ADDITI ONAL QUERIES HAVE BEEN RAISED AS MENTIONED IN PARA NO.3 OF THE ORDER. A S PER IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. CIT(E) HAS OBSERVED THAT ON THIS DATE NEITHER DID ANYBODY ATTENDED NOR WAS ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT RECEIV ED, THEREFORE, IT BECOMES EVIDENT THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTE D IN PURSUING THE MATTER. UL TIMATELY THE LD. CIT(E) DENIED THE REGISTRATION OF T HE APPLICATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT, WITHOUT TOUCHING THE M ERIT OF THE CASE. 3. HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES AT LENGTH AND MATERIAL AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVE THAT THE LD. CIT(E) HAS PASSED TH E ORDER WITHOUT TOUCHING THE MERIT OF THE CASE AND DENIED THE REGISTRAT ION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT TO THE APPELLANT SOCIETY. IT APPEARS FROM THE O RDER THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT BOTHER TO APPEAR AND CO-ORDINATE W ITH APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS EVEN AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITIES. ALTHO UGH THE INSTANT APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN O RDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PRINCIPLE THAT LAW DOES NOT ASSIST THE PERSON WHO IS INACTIVE AND SLEEPS OVER HIS RIGHTS BY ALLOWING THEM WHEN CHALLENGED OR DISPUTED TO REMAIN DORMANT, WITHOUT ASSERTING THEM IN A COURT O F LAW. THE, PRINCIPLE WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF THIS RULE IS EXPRESSED IN THE MAXIM VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMIENTIBUS, JURASUBVENIUNT (LAW AS SISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHT S), BUT EVEN A VIGILANT LITIGANT IS PRONE TO COMMIT MISTAKES. AS THE AP HORISM TO ERR IS HUMAN AND IS MORE A PRACTICAL NOTION OF HUMAN BEHAVIO R THAN AN ABSTRACT PHILOSOPHY, THE UNINTENTIONAL LAPSE ON THE PAR T OF A LITIGANT SHOULD NOT NORMALLY CAUSE THE DOORS OF THE JUDICATURE P ERMANENTLY CLOSED BEFORE HIM. THE EFFORT OF THE COURT SHOULD NOT B E ONE OF FINDING MEANS TO PULL DOWN THE SHUTTERS OF ADJUDICATORY JURISDIC TION BEFORE A ITA N0.676/ASR/ 2019 SARDAR JOGINDER SINGH CHARITABLE TRUST VS . CIT(E) 3 PARTY WHO SEEKS JUSTICE, ON ACCOUNT OF ANY MISTAKE COMMIT TED BY HIM, BUT TO SEE WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE TO ENTERTAIN HI S GRIEVANCE IF IT IS GENUINE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT PASS THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE ON MERIT , WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE AND PROPER TO REMAND BACK THE INSTANT CASE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(E) TO DECIDE AFRESH ON MERITS, WHILE AFFOR DING PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLA NT , IN ORDER TO FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WE ALSO FEEL IT IMPERATIVE TO DIRECT THE APPELLANT TO EXTEND ITS FULL CO-OPERATION AND PARTICIPATION IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(E) AS AND WHEN WOULD BE REQUIRED AND IN CASE OF FURTHER DEFAULT, THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT BE SUBJECTED TO ANY LENIENCY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT SOCI ETY STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/1 2/2019. SD/- SD/- (O.P.MEENA) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17/12/2019. /PK/ PS. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THEN CIT(APPEALS) 5. SR DR, I.T.A.T. AMRITSAR 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER