Castelino Providence Charity Trust , Puttur V. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) , Bangalore

ITA 792/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3607 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BIJOY KUMAR PANDA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 792 /BANG/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR : M/S. CASTELINO PROVIDENCE CHARITY TRUST, NO. 1, PROVIDENCE COTTAGE, KALLARE, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA 574 201. PAN : AABTC 8567 H VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. H. V. GOWTHAMA, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI . BIJOY KUMAR PANDA, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING : 02 . 0 8 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 . 0 8 .201 8 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT DENYING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT. THIS APPEAL IS FILED LATE BY 120 DAYS FOR WHICH ASSESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME. ITA NO. 792/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 3 2. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND THE ANNEXED THERETO AND WE FIND THAT THERE IS VALID REASONS FOR THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL THE HEARING. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE CIT HAS DISMISSED THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION IN LIMINE WITHOUT ASSIGNING VALID REASONS FOR THE DENIAL OF THE REGISTRATION. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT HE HAS FILED THE REQUISITE INFORMATION AND THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT BUT HE DID NOT CONSIDER THE SAME AND REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY RAISED BY THE CIT VIDE LETTER DATED 30.08.2016. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT PROPER ON THE PART OF THE CIT TO HOLD THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE REQUISITE INFORMATION BEFORE HIM. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND HAS PLACED A RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT. 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT IN THE LIGHT OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT CIT HAS MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER WHILE DENYING REGISTRATION THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE REQUISITE INFORMATION MENTIONED IN THE FIRST PARA OF ITS ORDER BUT FROM PERUSAL OF THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT ALL REQUISITE INFORMATION WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT BUT HE DID NOT CONSIDER THE SAME AND REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LET THE MATTER BE SENT BACK TO THE CIT FOR READJUDICATION OF THE REQUEST OF REGISTRATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH DIRECTION TO READJUDICATE THE REQUEST FOR REGISTRATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO AFFORD OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 792/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 3 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST AUGUST, 2018. SD/- SD/- BANGALORE. DATED: 21 ST AUGUST, 2018. /NS/* COPY TO: 1. APPELLANTS 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. DR 4. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE. ( JASON P BOAZ ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER