Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SHRI. N.K. SAINI & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY
Sh. Bawa Brahm Dev Ji Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Village Chak Jadeli, (Exemptions), Chandigarh P.O. Taloor, Tehsil and District: Samhba, Jammu (J&K) [PAN No: AANTS 8425N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Vinamar Gupta (Ld. C.A.) Respondent by: Sh. M. P. Singh (Ld. CIT- DR) Date of hearing: 25.11.2020 Date of pronouncement: 25.11.2020 ORDER
PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, JM:
This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Assessee against the order dated 23-07-2020 impugned herein, passed by the Ld. CIT(E), Chandigarh u/s. 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the ‘Act’) for the aforesaid assessment year, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the Appellant’s application filed u/s 12 A of the Act.
From the impugned order it reflects that though the Ld. CIT(A) fixed the case for hearing on various dates, however on most of the dates, the Assessee neither attended the appellate
2 Bawa Brahm Dev Ji Trust V. CIT(E) proceedings nor filed any adjournment application and therefore the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the Applicant’s Application filed u/s 12AA of the Act, while observing that keeping in view the unresponsive attitude of the Applicant, it is safe to conclude that the applicant has failed to discharge its onus, this being a beneficial clause for the applicant, to prove that its income is free from exigibility of taxes. In the light of the above, the application for grant of Registration u/s 12AA is accordingly rejected.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the order impugned herein. It is the claim of the Appellant that no reasonable opportunity of being heard was given to the Appellant as office of the appellant situates at Samba, Jammu and Kashmir which is far away from Ld. Commissioner office at Chandigarh and time given by the Ld. Commissioner was too short and lesser that the time in which any correspondence could reach from Chandigarh to Samba (J&K) in lock down period. It was further claimed by the Appellant that even entire activity in the country including UT of Jammu and Kashmir has crippled due to pandemic situation and all social/religious places/places of worship were kept completely closed down as per instructions issued by the Government of J & K.
From the order it reflects that an opportunity of hearing was accorded on 22-11-2019 by the Ld. Commissioner with a request to file details/clarifications on 05-12-2019 which remains un-complied and thereafter after a gap of 06 months another opportunity was accorded to the appellant on 01-07-2020 by fixing the date of hearing 06-07-2020 and again on 10-07-2020. From the last fixation dates it reflects that there was gap of only 03 day in fixing the case for final hearing, whereas it is 3 Bawa Brahm Dev Ji Trust V. CIT(E)
undisputable fact that office of the Assessee is far away from the Ld. Commissioner office at Chandigarh where the Appellant was supposed to join and therefore the appellant could not get proper and reasonable time to appear and represent its case before the ld. Commissioner. It is also undisputed fact the due pandemic almost all social/religious/worship places were closed down as per instructions of Government, hence this could also be plausible reason for non-attending the proceedings.
It is trite to say that every person has the right to speak and be heard when allegations are being put towards him or her. If no opportunity has been given to the party effected, then it shall amount to violations of the principles of natural justice, which embedded in latin words “Audi AlteramPartem” which means ‘hear the other side’, or ‘no man should be condemned un-heard’ or ‘both the sides must be heard before passing any order’. The principle of Audi AlteramPartem is the basic concept of the principle of natural justice and has not evolved from the constitution but evolved through civilization and mankind and is the concept of common law, which implies fairness, reasonableness, equality and equity. In India, the principles of natural justice are the grounds of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Article 14 enshrines that every person should be treated equally. In the landmark case of ‘Maneka Gandhi vs. The Union of India’ (1978 AIR 597), it has been held by Constitution Bench of the Apex Court that the law and procedure must be of a fair, just and reasonable kind. The doctrine ensures a fair hearing and fair justice to both the parties. Under this doctrine, both the parties have the right to speak. The aim of this principle is to give an opportunity to the parties to defend themselves.
4 Bawa Brahm Dev Ji Trust V. CIT(E)
Before the court, both the parties are equal and are entitlement of equal opportunity to represent them. If the order is passed by the authority without providing the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person affected by it adversely will be invalid and shall be liable to be set aside.
On the aforesaid deliberations, we are of the considered view that Appellant could not get proper and reasonable opportunities of being heard to represent its case before the Ld. Commissioner, hence in order to meet the substantial justice, appropriate course would be to set aside the order impugned and remand back the case to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for a decision afresh. Consequently, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for decision afresh, suffice to say due opportunities of being heard should be given to the Appellant.
We also feel it appropriate to direct the Appellant to extend its full co-operation and participation in the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(E) as and when would be required and in case of further default, the Appellant shall not be subjected to any leniency.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.11.2020.