THE PRESS CLUB OF ODISHA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD, BHUBANESWAR

Shri D.Parida, CA appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Shri D.Parida, CA appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Shri D.Parida, CA appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. Sr DR appeared for the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that the CIT(A), NFAC, It was submitted by ld AR that the CIT(A), NFAC, It was submitted by ld AR that the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has grossly erred in confirming the order of rejecting the application u/s.154 of the Act erred in confirming the order of rejecting the application u/s.154 of the Act erred in confirming the order of rejecting the application u/s.154 of the Act

P a g e 1 | 3 by the AO without adjudicating the fact that the corpus fund contributed by the club members of Rs.56,10,000/- is exempted from tax on the doctrine of mutuality. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has passed the order exparte without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, which is clear violation of natural justice. He submitted that the assessee trust is not for profit making organization, which was established solely for the welfare and development of the journalist working in the State of Odissa. It was the submission that for the impugned assessment year, the assessee had filed ITR-7 by mistake in place of ITR-5 wherein, members’s subscription fee of Rs.56,10,000/- has been wrongly entered as voluntary contribution. Subsequently, in the intimation u/s.143(1), a demand was raised of Rs.22,82,978/-. Against the intimation, application u/s.154 of the Act was filed, which was rejected by the ld CIT(A) exparte without giving any reasonable opportunity to substantiate the claim of the assessee trust. It was the submission that the matter be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.

In reply, ld Sr DR supported the order of the ld CIT(A).

We have heard the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) shows that as there was no response from the side of the assessee in response to the notices, the appeal was decided on the basis of facts on record. Before us, ld AR undertakes that if one more opportunity is given, the assessee would be in a position to clarify in regard to the contribution P a g e 2 | 3 received by the members of the assessee trust. In view of above, as the impugned order has been passed exparte, we, in the interest of justice, set aside the order of the ld CIT(A) and remit the matter back to his file to decide the appeal afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the ld CIT(A) by furnishing necessary details for disposal of the appeal expeditiously.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.