Thapar Polytechnic College, Patiala V. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh

ITA 856/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2309 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 29-03-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAGDEEP GOYAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 80G; 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.856/CHD/2016 (U/S 80G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT) THAPAR POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, VS. THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS), THAPAR TECHNOLOGY CAMPUS, CHANDIGARH. BHADSON ROAD, PATIALA. PAN: AABTT2476Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI GURJEET SINGH, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JAGDEEP GOYAL, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 27.08.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.08.2018 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH DATED 28.4.2016, PASSED U/ S 80G(5)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT T HE ACT). 2. AT THE OUTSET IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE APPEAL WAS DELAYED FOR FILING BY 18 DAYS. AN APPLICATION REQUE STING CONDONATION OF DELAY WAS FILED BEFORE US. DURING TH E COURSE OF HEARING, REFERRING TO THE SAME, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE APPEAL WAS TO BE FILED BY 1.7.2016 BUT DURING THE INTERVENING PERIOD THE COLLEGE STAFF WAS BUSY WITH THE REGULAR EXAMS CONDUCTED IN THE MONTH OF MA Y AND THEREAFTER WITH THE ADMISSION PROCEDURE IN THE NEXT SESSION IN THE MONTH OF JUNE AND BECAUSE OF HEAVY RUSH OF S TUDENTS FOR ADMISSION, INADVERTENTLY ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FOR FILING ITA NO.856/CHD/2016 U/S 8G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT 2 THE APPEAL IN TIME COULD NOT BE PROCURED. THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE DELAY WAS UNINTENTIONA L AND THE ASSESSEE HAS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE SAME AND FU RTHER THAT THE DELAY WAS ONLY A MINOR DELAY OF 18 DAYS WHICH W AS, THEREFORE, PRAYED TO BE CONDONED. LD.DR DID NOT OBJECT TO THE SAME. 3. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE DELAY WAS ONLY OF 18 DAYS, WE CONDONE THE DELA Y. WE SHALL NOW PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE IMPUGNED APPEAL. 4. IT WAS COMMON GROUND THAT THE SOLE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL RELATES TO REJECTION OF GRANT OF REG ISTRATION U/S 80G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT. 5. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. BECAUSE THE ACTION IS BEING CHALLENGED ON FACTS & LAW, FOR HAVING REJECTED THE GRANTING OF THE REGISTRATION U/S 80G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT, WHICH ACTION IS OVERLOOKING & IGNORING THE FACTS, MATERIAL ON RECORD, PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND EVEN FURTHER IN PATENT VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. BECAUSE THE ACTION IS BEING CHALLENGED ON FACTS & LAW, FOR HAVING REJECTED THE GRANTING OF THE REGISTRATION U/S 80G(5)(VI) WHICH IS A MIS- APPLICATION OF THE JURISDICTION BY THE RESPONDENT. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, LD. COU NSEL FOR ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(E) AS UNDER: ITA NO.856/CHD/2016 U/S 8G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT 3 ORDER U/S 80G (5)(VI) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 AN APPLICATION IN FORM 10G WAS FILED ON 27.11.2015. 2. IN ORDER TO ACCORD AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING, LE TTER WAS ISSUED FROM THIS OFFICE IN RESPONSE TO THE AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED AND FILED DETAILS. 3. IN THE CASE OF -THE APPLICANT AN APPLICATION U/S 12AA WAS ALSO FILED SIMULTANEOUSLY. THE APPLICATION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REGISTRATION OR NOTIFICATION UNDER SEC TION '12A OR 10(23) /10 (23C), RESPECTIVELY, DIDN'T MEET THE REQUIREMEN T FOR APPROVAL AS MANDATED BY RULE 11AA OF THE L.T.RULES, 1962. EVEN THOUGH THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRA TION UNDER SECTION 12A RECENTLY, THE REAL PURPOSE AS PER THE STATED OBJECTS CAN'T BE CORROBORATED AT PRESENT GIVEN THAT THE SOCIETY IS STILL TO REDEEM ITSELF AFTER THE GRANT OF 12A REGIS TRATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE REQUEST FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S 80G IS TREATED AS PREMATURE AND IN THAT LIGHT DECLINED. (AMARESH SINGH) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH 7. REFERRING TO THE SAME IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT TH E ORDER WAS CRYPTIC, NON -SPEAKING AND THE LD. CIT(E) HAD R EJECTED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE BEING AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATIO N U/S 12A OF THE ACT. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT NO VALID REASON FOR REJECTING THE APPLICATION WAS GIVEN EXCEPT FOR STAT ING THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD RECENTLY BEEN GRANTED REGI STRATION U/S 12A ITS REAL PURPOSE COULD NOT BE CORROBORATE D WITH ITS OBJECTS SINCE THE APPLICANT STILL HAD TO REDEEM ITS ELF AFTER GRANT OF REGISTRATION. 8. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(E). 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH PARTIES AN D HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(E). WE ARE I N AGREEMENT WITH THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LD.CIT(E) HAS PASSED A CRYPTIC AND NON-SPEAKING ORD ER WHILE ITA NO.856/CHD/2016 U/S 8G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT 4 REJECTING THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL U/ S 80G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT. EXCEPT FOR STATING THAT THE APPLICANT ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES CANNOT BE CORROBORATED WITH I TS OBJECTS AFTER GRANT OF REGISTRATION, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NO TIME TO REDEEM ITSELF AFTER HAVING RECENTLY BEEN GRANTED RE GISTRATION U/S 12A,NO OTHER REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN. AND THE SAI D REASON ALSO IS WITHOUT ANY MERITS SINCE THE APPLICANT IS A RENOWNED INSTITUTE CARRYING OUT EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY SINCE L ONG WHICH COULD VERY WELL BE EXAMINED WITH ITS STATED OBJECTS . THE ORDER OF THE CIT(E) ALSO DOES NOT REFER TO THE COND ITIONS WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FULFILL FOR GRAN T OF APPROVAL U/S 80G(5)(VI) AND WHICH HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE. CLEARLY, THE CI T(E) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE APPLICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW IN THIS REGARD. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER IT F IT TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(E) TO PASS A REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDER AFRESH, AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORT UNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE FURTHER DIRECT THAT THE ORDER BE PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(E) WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE REC EIPT OF OUR ORDER. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 31 ST AUGUST, 2018 *RATI* ITA NO.856/CHD/2016 U/S 8G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT 5 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH