IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH D : CHENNAI [BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A NO. 955/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : N.A M/S ANNAI VELANKANNI EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST DOOR NO.126 JUDGES COLONY KOTTIVAKKAM CHENNAI 600 041 VS THE DIRECTOR INCOME- TAX(EXEMPTIONS) CHENNAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.SRINIVASAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.E.B RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE DIT(E), CHENNAI, DATED 18.2.2011, VIDE WHICH HE HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE A CT, FILED ON 25.8.2011. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, CONSTITUTED BY DEAD OF TRUST DATE D 22/08/2007, INTERALIA, FOR ESTABLISHING AND RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, MAINLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE LOWER RUNG OF THE SOCIETY, E SPECIALLY IN THE RURAL ITA 955/11 :- 2 -: AREA, WITHOUT ANY PROFIT MOTIVE. AN APPLICATION SE EKING REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST U/S 12AA WAS FILED WITH THE DIT(E), CHENN AI ON 25.08.2010. IN RESPONSE TO LETTER DATED 10.1.2011 SEEKING VARIO US DETAILS, THE ASSESSEE-TRUST FILED DETAILED REPLY ON 20.1.2011. AS THE MANAGING TRUSTEE OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST WAS UNWELL AND ASSESS EES AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAS OUT OF STATION ON THE DATE OF HE ARING, PERSONAL ATTENDANCE COULD NOT BE COMPLIED WITH. NEVERTHELES S ALL DETAILS CALLED FOR AS PER THE LETTER WERE FURNISHED. THE ASSESSEE- TRUST HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY FURTHER NOTICE FROM THE DIT(E) ASKING FOR FURTHER DETAILS SUBSEQUENT TO ITS REPLY DATED 20.01.2011 IN RESPONS E TO THE NOTICE DATED 10.01.2011. THE DIT(E) HAD REJECTED THE APPL ICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 18.02.2011 WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IN T HEIR PROPER PERSPECTIVE, AND WITHOUT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNIT Y HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION, PURELY FOR THE REASON THAT, DETAILS FOR UNSECURED LOANS WERE NOT FURNISHED, ALTHOUGH LEDGER PRINT OUT OF UNSECURED LOANS WERE IN FACT FURNISHED. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IS IN APPEAL. 3. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE LD. DIT(E) IN CORRECT PERSPECTIVE. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE DIT(E) WILL GIVE CLEAR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND AL LOW THE TRUST TO ITA 955/11 :- 3 -: SUBMIT ITS CASE WITH THE HELP OF DOCUMENTS ETC. AC CORDINGLY, WE REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE DIT(E) WITH THE A BOVE DIRECTION. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.6.2011. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (HARI OM MARATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21 ST JUNE, 2011 RD COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR