Madhuraj Academy & Research Centre, Kanpur V. CIT, Kanpur

ITA 97/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 9723714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-04-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K B AJAJ
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A - BENCH, LUCKNOW. BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.97(LKW.)/2011 MADHURAJ ACADEMY & RESEARCH CENTRE, VS. THE CIT-I, 113/12-A, SWARUP NAGAR, KANPUR. KANPUR. PAN AACTM 6238J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.K.BAJAJ, SR.D.R. O R D E R PER H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT-I, KANPUR DATED 19.1.2010 PASSED UNDER SECTI ON 12AA(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS: 1. BECAUSE THE CIT-KANPUR-I HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION MOVED IN FORM NO.10A FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12A/12AA OF THE ACT, WITHOUT APPRE CIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. BECAUSE THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT-KANPUR-I U/S.12A A(L) OF THE ACT 1961 DATED 19.01.2011 REJECTING REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF L AW, BE QUASHED AND THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY BE GRANTED REGISTRATION AS PRAYED FOR. 2 3. BECAUSE THE CIT-KANPUR-I HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED I.E. 06.01.2011, WHEREAS A DETAILED REPLY DAT ED 06.01.2011 WAS FILED WHICH REPLY HAS ESCAPED THE AT TENTION AND ON FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE SAME THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT- KANPUR-I IN HASTE IS BAD IN LAW. 4. BECAUSE THE CIT-KANPUR-I PASSING THE ORDER REJEC TING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION (BEING CIT-KANPUR-II) WAS HOLDING ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF CIT,KANPUR- I AND WAS NOT CONV ERSANT WITH THE DISCUSSIONS AND NOTINGS TAKEN WITH DEFACTO CIT- KANPUR-I, SHOULD OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN A FRESH HEARIN G TO THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT BEFORE PASSING ORDER REJECTING T HE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION. 5. BECAUSE ON A PROPER CONSIDERATION OF FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ALL CONDITIONS AS LAID DOWN AND AS PRES CRIBED AS PER SECTION 12AA READ WITH RULE 17A HAVING BEEN FULFILL ED, THE REGISTRATION AS SOUGHT FOR BE GRANTED. 6. BECAUSE THERE BEING NEITHER ANY NON-COMPLIANCE N OR ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT IN COMPLYING W ITH THE REQUISITE QUERIES, THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT-KANPUR-I , REJECTING REGISTRATION IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION BAD IN LAW AND BE QUASHED. THE REGISTRATION AS PRAYED FOR BE GRANTED. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION DATED 19.7.2010 IN FORM NO.10A FOR GRAN T OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT, WI THOUT AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE , REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING AS UNDER : FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ENCLOSURE OF FORM NO.10A, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC.12AA READ W ITH RULE 17A AND ALSO FORM NO.10A HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY FILLED U P. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS REGISTERED WITH REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, KANPUR ON 01.07.2010 AND SINCE THEN NO ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN U NDERTAKEN BY THE 3 ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE-SOCIETY HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE DETAILS OF CORPUS FUNDS, BANK STATEMENT, BI LLS & VOUCHERS, REGISTER AND MINUTE BOOK FOR VERIFICATION. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE HA S NOTHING TO SAY IN THIS REGARD AND IT DOES NOT FULFILL THE COND ITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 12AA(1) OF I.T.ACT, AS SUCH APPLICATION FILED BY AS SESSEE ON 19.07.2010 FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA(1) OF I.T.ACT 1961 IS HEREBY REJECTED. 4. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL. 5. BEFORE US, SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE, LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE FOLLOWIN G PAPERS BEFORE /IN THE OFFICE OF THE LD.CIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF REGISTRATI ON UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT: (I) PETITION/APPLICATION IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM SEE KING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, (II) COPY OF MEMORANDUM ALONGWITH LIST OF MEMBERS, RULES & REGULATIONS, DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNT/STATEMENTS AND A WRITE UP REGARDING THE OBJECTS AND THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASS ESSEE. (III) DETAILED EXPLANATION DATED 6.1.201 ALONGWITH ALL DETAILS AS ASKED FOR. SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT HAS NOT CONFRONTED THE REPORT RECEIVED F ROM THE ACIT- I,KANPUR/ADDL.CIT,RANGE-I,KANPUR DATED 5.1.2011. IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHETHER THE AFORESAID REPORT WAS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE OR AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. SHRI RAKESH GARG, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE LD.CIT HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. 4 HE,THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CI T MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. SHRI P.K.BAJAJ, LD.SR.D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF THE LD.CIT. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE ALS O PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT HAS NOT AFFORDED DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IT AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF P RINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE REPORT SUBMI TTED BY THE ACIT- I,KANPUR/ADDL. CIT, RANGE-I,KANPUR DATED 5.1.2011 W AS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE OR AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO FIND THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED ABOUT THE DATE FIXED FOR HEA RING ON 6.1.2011. IT SEEMS THAT THE LD.CIT HAS PASSED THE ORDER IN A HA STY MANNER WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT FORM NO.10A WAS NOT PROPERLY FILLED UP BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW, THE LD.CIT OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN AN OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO RECTIFY FORM NO.10A IF IT WAS NOT PROPERLY FILLED U P. SINCE WE HAVE HELD THAT THE LD.CIT HAS NOT PROVIDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THIS OBSERVATION OF THE LD.CIT THAT THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE DETAILS OF CORPUS FUNDS, BANK S STATEMENT, BILLS & VOUCHERS, REGISTERS AND MINUTE BOOK FOR VERIFICATIO N IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE PRESENT CASE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT IN TOTO AND REMAND TH E MATTER TO THE LD.CIT WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW PREFERABLY WITHIN TWO 5 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER. NEEDL ESS TO SAY, THE LD.CIT WILL GIVE DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5.4.201 1. SD. SD. (N.K.SAINI) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT APRIL 5TH ,2011. COPY TO THE : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) (4) CIT 5.DR. A.R.,ITAT, LUCKNOW. SRIVASTAVA.