M/s Subera Trust, Chandigarh V. CIT I, Chandigarh

ITA 679/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90101 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-04-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR AMA RVEER SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 679/CHD/2014 (ORDER UNDER SECTION 12AA) SUBERA TRUST, VS THE CIT, # 30, SECTOR 3, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AANTS3755M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SI NGH RESPONDENT BY : DR. AMARVEER SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 15.04.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.04.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I CHANDIGARH DATED 21/23 .05.2014 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SE CTION 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE FILED REGISTRATION APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT IN PRESCRIBED FORM BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX, CHANDIGARH. THE HEARING WAS FIXED ON 29.04.2014 SE EKING SEVERAL INFORMATIONS AND TO FILE THE DOCUMENTS. THE NOTICE , HOWEVER, RETURNED UN-SERVED WITH THE REMARKS THAT NO SUCH PE RSON IS FOUND THERE. FURTHER NOTICE WAS ISSUED THROUGH INSPECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR SERVICE UPON ASSESSEE. IT WAS REPORT ED THAT NO RESPONSIBLE PERSON OF THE TRUST WAS AVAILABLE AT TH E GIVEN ADDRESS AND SERVANT AVAILABLE AT THE ADDRESS HAS REFUSED TO RECEIVE NOTICE 2 OF HEARING. THEREFORE, NOTICE WAS AFFIXED. THE RE GISTERED COVER ALSO RETURNED UN-SERVED WITH THE REMARKS NO SUCH P ERSON IS AVAILABLE. THE HEARING WAS AGAIN FIXED FOR 21.05. 2014 AND ON THAT DATE, COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE APPEARED AND SHE WA S ASKED TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AS PER THE EARLIER N OTICES ISSUED. SHE WAS ASKED TO SIGN THE ORDER-SHEET BUT SHE REFUS ED TO SIGN THE ORDER-SHEET. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF PRODUCTI ON OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITI ES OF THE ASSESSEE AND CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES COULD NOT BE VER IFIED AND THE APPLICATION WAS REJECTED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE I N THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL CHALLENGED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THEREFORE, IMPUGNED ORDER IS PASSED A GAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT ON EARLIER OCCASION, NO NOTICE HAD B EEN SERVED UPON ASSESSEE. ON 21.05.2014, ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL AP PEARED BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND REQUEST WAS MADE IN WRITING THAT SINCE ASSESSEE WAS OUT OF STATION FOR LAST TWO WEEKS, THEREFORE, NO COMPLETE DETAILS COULD BE FILED AND F URTHER ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT FOR A SUITABLE TIME. SAME R EQUEST WAS MADE ON 22.05.2014 EXPLAINING THAT SINCE NO RESPONS IBLE PERSON OF THE ASSESSEE IS AVAILABLE, THEREFORE, FURTHER TI ME MAY BE GIVEN TO MAKE THE COMPLIANCE. COPIES OF THE LETTERS ARE FIL ED AT PAGE 1 & 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE V IEW THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT GIVING REASONABLE SUFFICIENT 3 OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE OBSERVATION IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT ON EARLIER O CCASIONS, THE NOTICES COULD NOT BE SERVED UPON ASSESSEE. IT IS F OR THE FIRST TIME WHEN ON 21.05.2014, COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE APPEAR ED BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT B ECAUSE THE RESPONSIBLE PERSONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT AVAILAB LE. SAME REQUEST IS MADE ON THE NEXT DATE ON 22.05.2014. TH E IMPUGNED ORDER IS DATED 21/23.05.2014. IT IS, THEREFORE, CL EAR THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS PASSED ON THE SAME DATE WHEN REQU EST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MADE. NO SUFFICIENT TIME IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT THE CASE BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX. THE ORDER IS THUS, PASSED AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATU RAL JUSTICE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE AND MATTER IN ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THE APPLICAT ION OF REGISTRATION ON MERITS BY GIVING REASONABLE SUFFICI ENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SHALL COOPERATE WITH THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN FINALIZATION OF THE MATTER. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH APRIL,2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15 TH APRIL,2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH