SHREE MANNI LAL SHIKSHAN SAMITI,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, ALLAHABAD

Assessee by: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Department by: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 11 02 2020 Date of pronouncement: 12 02 2020 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: 2. In this case, the assessee moved an application, dated 4/2/2020 for early hearing of the miscellaneous application, which was placed before the Bench on 10/2/2020. On considering the contents of the early hearing application, we allowed the same and fixed the miscellaneous application for hearing on 11/02/2020.

M.A. No.19/ALLD/2018 & Page 2 of 5 3. This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the assessee for recalling of the ex-parte order of the Tribunal dated 12/12/2017 passed in for assessment year 2010-11.

1. Because the Ld) has passed the order without affording proper opportunity to the Appellant The Counsel of the Appellant appeared on the date fixed i.e 18-12-2014 and requested for adjournment for any other date after 02/01/2015, but the Ld Commissioner of M.A. No.19/ALLD/2018 & Page 3 of 5 Income Tax (Appeals) rejected the Adjournment and chose to decide the appeal Ex-pa rte .

2. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax without appreciating the facts that the part of Land on which the part of school building is constructed is duly entered in the Books of Accounts of the appellant Society reflected in the Audited Balance Sheet & Profit & Loss A/C of the appellant Society though purchased in the name of the Secretary of the Society. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has wrongly held that benefit has been passed to a person referred in Section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 denying the exemption Under Section 11 to the appellant Educational Society and proceeded to hold Rs.13,41,071/-, Rs.13,467/- & Rs.3,926/- from Education institutions as taxable Income.

3. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) wrongly, arbitrarily, illegally confirmed the addition of the Capital Expenditure Rs.46,00,173/- which was made without any proper basis.

2. By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The ld. CIT(A) had issued four notices to the assessee. The last notice, dated 28/11/2014 was issued, fixing the appeal for hearing on 18/12/2014. On this date, i.e., 18/12/2014, the ld. Counsel for the assessee moved an application seeking adjournment, which was rejected by the ld. CIT(A) and he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Inviting our attention to ground no.1, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that on the last date of hearing, i.e., 18/12/2014, the ld. Counsel for the assessee moved an application for a short adjournment; that however, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the adjournment application and decided the appeal of the assessee M.A. No.19/ALLD/2018 & Page 4 of 5 ex-parte qua the assessee; and the order of the ld. CIT(A), therefore, may be set aside and the matter may be restored to his file to decide the matter afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

3. Heard. We find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without providing proper opportunity to the assessee. As contended by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the last date of hearing before the ld. CIT(A), i.e., 18/12/2014, the ld. Counsel for the assessee moved an application for a short adjournment. But, the ld. CIT(A), after rejecting the adjournment application, decided the appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed the application for short adjournment and decided the appeal on merit after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) had decided the appeal without appreciating the facts of the case. In this view of the matter, we remit the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. 4. In the result, the M.A. is allowed and for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12/02/2020.