Tagore Educational Charitable Society, Pehowa V. CIT(E), Chandigarh

ITA 960/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7788 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP DHAIYA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIPIN SETHI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH B, CHANDIGARH .., ! '# #$ %, & '( BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, J M ./ ITA NO. 960/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : TAGORE EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY H.NO. 376/13, FOUR MARLA COLONY PEHOWA, KURUKSHETRA THE CIT (EXEMPTION) CHANDIGARH ./ PAN NO: AACAT9570D / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIPIN SETHI, ADVOCATE # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI SANDEEP DHAIYA, CIT(DR) $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 20/01/2020 '()* ! &/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20/01/2020 ')/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER D T. 24/05/2019 OF LD. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1 THAT THE WORTHY CIT (EXEMPTION) CHANDIGARH HAS ER RED IN REJECTING THE APPELLANT'S APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. 2. THAT THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S 1 0(23C)(VI) HAS BEEN REJECTED AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BY NOT CONSIDERING OUR SUBMISSION PROPERLY. 3. THAT THE COUNSEL OF APPELLANT APPEARED BEFORE WO RTHY CIT (EXEMPTION) AND SUBMITTED PAPER-BOOK OF 69 PAGES ON 12/03/2019 IN R ESPONSE TO NOTICE DT. 01/02/2019, WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED PROPERLY. 4. THAT THE RELEVANT PAPERS. REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL WERE SUBMITTED, NO DEFECT WAS POINTED OUT, HENCE APPROVAL WRONGLY DENIED BY NOT C ONSIDERING THESE PAPERS. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY PROPER/REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND SUBMIT THE DETAILS. 2 6. THAT NO NOTICE FOR DATE OF HEARING WAS SERVED. H ENCE C\A\M OF THE WORTHY CIT(EXEMPTIONS) THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT ATTEND THE VARIOUS DATE OF HEARING IS NOT CORRECT. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF 3. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL RELAT ES TO THE REJECTION OF APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 10(23C )(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT), AND VIDE GROUND NO. 5 THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD NOT PR OVIDED BY THE LD. CIT(E). 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE E-F ILED APPLICATION IN FORM NO. 56D FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(E) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE CERTAIN DETAILS / CLARIFICATION BY 21/02/2019, HE REPRODUCED THE CONTENTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE AT PAGE NO. 1 TO 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, FOR THE COST OF REPETITION THE SAME ARE NOT REPR ODUCED HEREIN. THEREAFTER THE LD. CIT(E) OBSERVED THAT ON THE SAID DATE NOBODY APPEARED A ND ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN FOR 06/03/2019, ON THAT DATE ALSO NOBODY APPEARED . HOWEVER ON 12/03/2019 COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND FILED WRITTEN SUB MISSIONS. THE LD. CIT(E) AGAIN ISSUED ANOTHER QUESTIONNAIRE AND FIXED THE MATTER FOR 26 /05/2019. THE CONTENTS ARE REPRODUCED IN PARA 3 AT PAGE NO. 3 TO 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, FOR THE COST OF REPETITION THE SAME ARE NOT REPRODUCED HEREIN. THE LD. CI T(E) REJECTED THE APPLICATION BY PASSING THE EX-PARTE ORDER AND OBSERVING IN PARA 4 O F THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER: ON 21.05.2019 NEITHER DID ANY BODY ATTEND NOR WAS A NY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. GIVEN THE NON-COMPLIANCE ON THE OCCAS ION AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE, IT BECOMES EVIDENT THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE MATTER. IT CAN SAFELY BE CONCLUDED THAT THE QUERIES RAISED COULD NOT BE ANSWERED BY THE APPLICANT. FURTHER, KEEPING IN VIEW THE UNRESPONSIVE ATTITUDE OF THE APPLICANT, IT IS SAFE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS, THIS BEING A BENEFICIAL CLAUSE FOR THE ASSESS EES, TO PROVE THAT ITS INCOME IS FREE FROM EXIGIBILITY OF TAXES. IN LIGHT OF THE ABO VE, I HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO DENY THE APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI)OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 . 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 3 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT PRO PER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS NOT PROVIDED BY THE LD. CIT(E) BEFORE REJECT ING THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. CIT(DR) SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(E) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT CONSIDERING TH E NON COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS NO ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO DISMIS S THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE I T IS NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(E) ALTHOUGH MENTIONED THAT THE MATTER BEFORE HIM WAS FIXED F OR HEARING ON 21/05/2019, HOWEVER NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE DATE WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE OR THE NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED, UNHE ARD AS PER THE MAXIM, AUDI ALTERAM PERTAM . WE THEREFORE KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURA L JUSTICE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20/01/2020) SD/- SD/- #$ % .., (SANJAY GARG ) ( N.K. SAI NI) & '(/ JUDICIAL MEMBER ! / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 20/01/2020 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT , 2. THE RESPONDENT , 3. CIT, 4. T HE CIT(A), 5. DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH, 6. GUARD FILE