The SECRETARY, Ajmer V. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

MA 30/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5616 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENDRA SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHENDRA GARGIYA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Non compliance
• Section: 80G; 12A

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YA DAV, AM M.A. NO. 30/JP/17 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 690/JP/2015) FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 THE SECRETARY, VRINDAVAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, AJMER. CUKE VS. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAATV5738N VIHYKFKHZ@ APPEL LANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAHENDRA GARGIYA (ADVOCATE) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 19/05/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/05/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE THIS BENC H IN ITA NO. 690/JP/2015 DATED 10.11.2016. 2. IN ITS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED I S AS UNDER:- 2.1 THE HEARING IN THE ABOVE MATTER WAS FIXED ON 7 OCCASIONS ON DIFFERENT DATE. ON AS MANY AS ON 5 OCCASIONS, THE LD AR WAS P RESENT BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT AND WAS WILLING TO ARGUE THE ABOVE MAT TER. HOWEVER, OUT OF THOSE 5 ON THREE OCCASIONS (I.E. 21.06.2016, 28.07. 2016 & 07.10.2016) M.A. NO.30/JP/17 THE SECRETARY VRINDAVAN SOCIETY, AJMER VS. CC IT, UDAIPUR 2 THE LD DR SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND ON ONE OCCASION ( I.E. 30.08.2016) THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED ON THE DIRECTION OF THE BENCH AND ON ONE OCCASION ( I.E. 18.05.2016 THERE WAS NO BENCH.) HOWEVER, IT WAS ONLY ON 2 OCCASIONS (I.E. 08.04.2016 & 10.11.2016), THE APPEL LANT PRAYED ADJOURNMENT. 2.2 THE REASONS BEHIND SEEKING ADJOURNMENT ON DATED 10.11.2016 WAS THAT THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF THE ASSESSEE SO CIETY WERE ALREADY AWAY FROM THE TOWN (AJMER) ON AN EDUCATIONAL TRIP H ENCE, A PRAYER FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS DULY SENT VIDE LETTER DATED 24.10.2 016 WHICH WAS EVEN DULY FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR, ITAT, JA IPUR BENCH, JAIPUR AND ALSO A COPY THEREOF WAS GIVEN TO THE DR OFFICE ON 25.10. 2016, AS EVIDENT FROM THE OFFICE COPY OF THE SAID LETTER WHICH BEARS THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF BOTH THE OFFICES. A COPY OF THE SAID LETTER IS ENCL OSED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-2. 2.3. HOWEVER, THE MATTER WAS DECIDED EX-PARTE ON 10 .11.2016 ITSELF VIDE THE SUBJECTED ORDER WHEREIN ALTHOUGH THE FACT OF FI LING OF THE APPLICATION IS DULY MENTIONED IN THE RELEVANT COLUMN BUT IN PARA 2 OF THE ITAT ORDER IT IS ALLEGED THAT ON THE DAY OF HEARING THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REPRESENTED BUT ANYONE AND IT APPEARED TO THE HONBLE ITAT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, AP PLYING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LDT. (SUPRA) AND A LSO FOLLOWING ANOTHER DECISION IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HO LKAR V/S CIT (1997) 223 ITR 0480 (MP), THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. M.A. NO.30/JP/17 THE SECRETARY VRINDAVAN SOCIETY, AJMER VS. CC IT, UDAIPUR 3 2.4 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED IN AS MUCH AS THE APPELLANT ASSE SSEEE HAS BEEN COMPLETED DEPRIVED OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF BEI NG HEARD WHICH IS IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AN D THAT TOO WITHOUT ANY FAULT ON ITS PART. MOREOVER, ONCE ADMITTEDLY AN APP LICATION PRAYING TIME WAS FILED AND ALSO TAKEN NOTE, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE SUBJECTED ORDER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PASSED. 2.5 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS NOT A CASE WHERE IT CAN BE SAID THAT IT WAS CASE OF COMPLETE NON COMPLIANCE FROM TH E ASSESSEE SO AS TO INFER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN AS MU CH AS, IN ALL THE OCCASIONS THE ASSESSEE THROUGH IS LD. AR WAS EITHER PRESENT OR ON A FEW OCCASION COMPLIED WITH THROUGH ADJOURNMENT FOR VALI D REASON AND EVEN THE ADJOURNMENTS SO SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DUL Y GRANTED. EVEN ON THE LAST DATE 10.11.2016, THE PRAYER WAS ADMITTEDLY AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THERE APPEARS NO SPECIFIC REJECTION OF SUCH AN APPLICATION WHICH IMPLIED THAT THE PRAYER OF ADJOURNMENT, SEEKING TIM E REMAINED UN- DISPOSED OFF. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS THE DEPARTMENT, WHO REPEATEDLY SOUGHT ADJOURNMENTS. 2.6. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPLICANT AS SESSEE IS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION ALREADY AVAILING THE BENEFIT OF REGISTR ATION U/S 12A & 80G OF THE ACT. THE APPLICANT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE NOBLE JOB OF IMPARTING EDUCATION ON NO PROFIT NO LOSS BASIS AND IT IS A CH ARITABLE ORGANIZATION. THERE IS NO PERSONAL INTEREST INVOLVED OF ANYBODY. THEREFORE, THE MATTER MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDERED SYMPATHETICALLY. M.A. NO.30/JP/17 THE SECRETARY VRINDAVAN SOCIETY, AJMER VS. CC IT, UDAIPUR 4 2.7. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY REQUESTED THAT SUITABLE REC TIFICATION MAY KINDLY BE CARRIED OUT BY RECALLING THE SUBJECTED ITAT ORDER. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF RECORDS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS REJECTED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. THE MATTER WAS LAST LISTED FOR HEARING ON 10.11.2016, N ONE APPEARED ON ITS BEHALF AND THE BENCH HAS SPECIFICALLY REJECTED THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT TH E PRAYER FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY DISPOSED OFF. HOW EVER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY AND TO HEAR THE PARTIES ON ME RIT, WE RECALL THE EARLIER EX- PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE THIS BENCH DATED 10.1 1.2016 AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE HEARING IN THE MATTER TO HEAR T HE ARGUMENTS ON MERIT ON 22.06.2017. THE PARTIES ARE AT LIBERTY TO FILE NECE SSARY PAPER BOOKS, IF ANY ONE WEEK IN ADVANCE OF SCHEDULED HEARING. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DIRECTIONS, MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISPOSED OFF. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/05/2017. SD/- SD/- DQY HKKJR FOE FLAG ;KNO (KUL BHARAT) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.30/JP/17 THE SECRETARY VRINDAVAN SOCIETY, AJMER VS. CC IT, UDAIPUR 5 TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 22 /05/2017. *SANTOSH . VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE SECRETARY, VRINDAVAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, AJMER, 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {M.A. NO.30/JP/17} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR