FLORENCE EDUCATION TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO (EXEMPTION)-1, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 618/AHD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 January 2022AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an opportunity for a proper hearing at any stage and that principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a trust registered under Section 12A, inadvertently filed incorrect details in its return of income, leading to the withdrawal of exemption and a demand. Rectification applications were rejected, and the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the revenue authorities adhered to the principles of natural justice by providing the assessee with an opportunity for a hearing. Whether the rejection of the rectification application was justified without proper adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Jimi Patel, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 09.12.2021Pronounced: 04.01.2022

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 23.01.2019 passed by the CIT(A)-9, Ahmedabad for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under :

“1) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming rejection of rectification application filed by the assessee u/s 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the submission filed by the assessee on the online portal.

2) The order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law as it was passed without adhering the principle of natural justice.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

Page 2 of 3 3. The appellant is a Trust registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 since 18.02.1986. The primary object of the appellant Trust is to impart education through various Institutes. The Trust has obtained audit report in form 10B as mandated under Section 12A(b) of the Act for claiming exemption for Assessment year 2014-15. The appellant filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2014-15 on 15.09.2014 claiming exemption under Section 12 but inadvertently it filed the incorrect details under column ‘Ç’ and typed “NO” against the column “whether the Trust is registered under Section 12A/12AA ?”. Thereafter, return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and due to above inadvertent mistake exemption available to the Trust was withdrawn and demand of Rs.13,46,070/- was raised on the Trust by intimation dated 28.02.2016. After receiving intimation raising demand, Trust has filed rectification application on e-filing portal to Central Processing Centre (CPC) to rectify the order and uploaded the correct particulars in ITR vide its application dated 12.12.2016 and 29.05.2017. Both the applications were rejected by the CPC on 16.03.2017 and 28.07.2017. Thereafter, on 31.07.2017 after the rejection of on-line rectification application, right of rectification was transferred to Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

4.

Being aggrieved by the said rectification order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee thereby applying the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Multiplan India Limited, 38 ITD 320.

5.

Ld. AR submitted that both the Revenue Authorities have not given any opportunity to the assessee for proper hearing and principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer to give opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

6.

The Ld. DR relied upon the rectification order and order of the CIT(A) but at the same time submitted that the assessee was not heard at any stage.

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that at any stage of the assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings, i.e. before the CIT(A), no opportunity was granted to Page 3 of 3 the assessee for personal hearing to comment on the merit of the case. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back the entire issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of the issues on merit and thereafter pass appropriate order as per due process of law. Needless to say the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 4th day of January, 2022.

More judgments on Section 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →