M/s Luxmi Educational Trust, Chandigarh V. CIT II, Chandigarh

ITA 920/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2356 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-04-2013
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMARVEER SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 80G; 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 919 & 920/CHD/2012 A.Y. 2012-13 M/S LUXMI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, V CIT-II, # 1632, SECTOR 49-B, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAATL-3977F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AMARVEER SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 16.04.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17/04/2013 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA,JM THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX DATED 03.07.2012 VIDE WH ICH BOTH THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 12AA AND SECTION 80G WERE REJECTED. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NO TICE THAT ON ACCOUNT OF NON COOPERATION BY THE APPELLANT TRUS T, LD. COMMISSIONER HAS REJECTED BOTH THE APPLICATIONS. 3. BEFORE US, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BY LD. COMMISSIONER ON 12.06.2012, HOWEVER, THE NOTICE OF FIXATION WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE VERY LATE. THAT IS WHY, NO PRESENCE COULD BE ASCERTAINED FROM APPELLAN T SIDE. ON 20.06.2012, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FO R 2 ADJOURNMENT AND REQUESTED FOR RE-FIXATION OF THE MA TTER, BUT NO ADJOURNMENT WAS GRANTED AND LD. COMMISSIONER PAS SED THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSE E SUBSEQUENTLY. 4. WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER IS A NON-SPEAKING ORDER. THE COMMISSIONER WAS REQUIRED TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER EVEN IF NOBODY APPEARED TO REPRESENT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT TRUST. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, NO PROPER AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS PROVIDE D TO THE APPELLANT TRUST. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUS TICE AND TO UPHOLD THE PRINCIPLE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM, THE AP PELLATE ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND BOTH THE APPEALS ARE RESTORE D BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX WITH A D IRECTION THAT HE SHALL ACCORD OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE A PPELLANT TRUST AND ONLY AFTER PROVIDING SUCH OPPORTUNITY, HE SHALL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. THE APPELLANT TRUST IS ALSO DIRE CTED TO COOPERATE WITH LD. COMMISSIONER AND TO EXPLAIN ITS CASE AS AND WHEN SO REQUIRED BY HIM. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH APRIL,2013. SD/- SD/- (N.K.SAINI) (HARI OM MARATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17 TH APRIL,2013. POONAM COPY TO: ` THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH