Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “B”, New Delhi
Before: SHRI N.K. SAINIBEFORE SHRI K.N. CHARY
O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, A.M:
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 26.10.2017 of the CIT(E), New Delhi. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal:-
1. The Ld. CIT(Exemption) has erred both in law and on facts in rejecting the application of the appellant trust u/s 12A of the I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring the materials and evidences submitted by the appellant trust to prove the genuineness of the activities of the trust and there is no adverse funding by the Ld. CIT on the nature of the objects of the trust which are charitable in nature.
2. The order under appeal has been passed by the Ld. CIT without commenting adversely on the evidences and details submitted by the appellant in reply to the specific queries raised in the course of impugned proceedings and on the contrary the Ld. CIT does not acknowledge in the order the evidences / materials produced by the appellant trust in response to the notices issued.
The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the action of the learned CIT(E) in not considering the material and evidences furnished by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the activities of the assessee trust.
Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed an application on 26.4.2017 in Form No. 10A seeking registrations under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The learned CIT(E) dismissed the appeal by passing the ex parte order by stating that the case was fixed for hearing on 16.10.2017 but on the same date nobody appeared and that assessee filed documents on 17.10.2017 and 24.10.2017 but nobody appeared. The learned CIT(E) observed that the assessee had not filed requisite details therefore, the genuineness of the activities could not be established. He accordingly rejected the application for registration under section 12A(a) of the Act.
Now the assessee is in appeal.
The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that all the relevant documents were furnished before the learned CIT(E) who passed ex parte order without providing a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without considering the relevant documents furnished by the assessee. In his rival submissions, the learned Sr. DR supported the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(E).
We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case it is noticed that learned CIT(E) on the one hand admitted that the assessee filed the documents on 17.10.2014 and 24.10.2017 relating to the case on the other hand he stated that the asessee had not filed the requisite details to establish the genuineness of the activities. It is also an admitted fact that learned CIT(E) dismissed the application of the assessee by passing the ex parte order.
I, therefore, by considering the contradictory stand taken by the learned CIT(E) and by keeping in view the principles of natural justice i.e. nobody should be condemned unheared as per the maxim “Audi Alteram Partem”, deem it appropriate to remit this case back to the file of the learned CIT(E) to be decided afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 09.10.2018.)