CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh V. Punjab Digital Library, Mohali

MA 110/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5607 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K S BAINS
• 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 M.A.NO.110/CHD/2016 IN ITA NO.793/CHD/2015 (UNDER SECTION 12AA) THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS), VS. PUNJAB DIGITAL LIBRARY, CHANDIGARH. 867, SECTOR 64, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI. PAN: AACTP1154C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI K.S.BAINS, ADDL.CIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL DATE OF HEARING : 27.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.12.2017 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE RELATES TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I.T.A.T . IN I.T.A. NO 793/CHD/2015 DATED 04/03/2016. 1. THE MISTAKE SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED ,AS STATED I N THE APPLICATION,IS THAT A FACTUAL ERROR HAD OCCURRED IN THE ORDER WHILE HOLDING THAT THE CIT HAD ERRED IN STAT ING THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAD FAILED TO SUPPLY THE INFORMA TION CALLED FOR, WHILE THE FACTS REVEALED OTHERWISE. 2.GIVING A BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE ,LD.DR POIN TED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAD FILED AN APPEAL TO THE ITAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(E) DENYING GRANT OF REGISTRATION TO IT U/S 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,19 61,WHO VIDE THEIR AFORESTATED ORDER HAD RESTORED THE MATTE R BACK 2 TO THE CIT(E) TO DECIDE AFRESH SINCE IT WAS FOUND T O HAVE BEEN WRONGLY REJECTED ON THE BASIS THAT NO INFORMAT ION HAD BEEN SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO SINCE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE .WHILE ISSUING THE SAID DIRECTION THE ITAT MADE THE AFORESTATED OBSERVATION ACCEDING TO THE ASSESSE ES CONTENTION THAT DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BE FORE THE CIT(E) IT HAD SUPPLIED INFORMATION CALLED FOR IN RESPONSE TO THE CITS LETTER . LD. DR POINTED OUT T HAT THIS FINDING OF THE I.T.A.T. WAS A FACTUAL MISTAKE. IT W AS POINTED OUT THAT THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE REPRODUC ED IN THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. SUPPLYING ALL INFORMATION CALLED FOR BY THE CIT(E), HAD NOT BEEN FILED IN THE PROCEE DINGS RELATING TO GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A . LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID LETTER HAD IN FACT BEEN F ILED IN PROCEEDINGS FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL TO THE ASSESSEE U NDER SECTION 10(23C) OF ACT, IN RESPONSE TO ITS APPLICAT ION FOR THE SAME DATED 13/03/15. 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ADMITTED THA T THE LETTER REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. WAS IN CONTEXT OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 10(23C) AND FU RTHER ADMITTED THAT IT WAS INADVERTENTLY STATED AS FILED IN RESPONSE TO APPLICATION MADE UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT.LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE MIS TAKE OCCURRED , CONSIDERING THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID LET TER, WHICH WERE RELEVANT FOR THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTI ON 12A, AND MORE PARTICULARLY POINT NO. 3 OF THE SAID LETTER 3 WHICH REFERRED TO SECTION 12A AND STATED THAT THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12A AND 80G HAD BEEN MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME. LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THA T ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER BEING RELEVAN T TO THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 12A ,IT WAS MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THAT THE SAID LETTER HAD BEEN FILED IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A ACT. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER STATED THAT IN ANY CASE THE SAID MISTAKE DID NOT EFFECT THE OUTCOM E OF THE APPEAL SINCE THE RESTORATION TO THE CIT(E) WAS NOT FOR THIS REASON ALONE ,BUT ALSO BECAUSE ADEQUATE OPPORT UNITY OF HEARING HAD NOT BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. HAVING HEARD THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE ITAT ALSO, WE AGREE THAT A FACTUAL MISTAKE HAS OCCURRED IN THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. BY STATING THE LETTER FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 10(23C) AS HAVING BEEN FI LED IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. BUT AT TH E SAME TIME WE AGREE WITH THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAME HAS NO CONSEQUENCE ON THE JUDGMENT GIVEN I N THE EXTANT ORDER, RESTORING THE ISSUE OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A BACK TO THE CIT(E) F OR RECONSIDERATION, SINCE THE RESTORATION WAS ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING HA D NOT BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE.THE PRESENT MISCELLANE OUS APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE,IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINIO N ,IS 4 THEREFORE OF NO RELEVANCE SINCE IT HAS NO IMPACT ON THE JUDGEMENT RENDERED IN THE ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 21 ST DECEMBER, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH