ROYAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE,MANIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 105/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 November 2019AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) violated the principles of natural justice by not giving the assessee sufficient opportunity to present their case and by not adjudicating the issue on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an order passed by the CIT(Exemption) under Section 12AA(1)(b)(ii). The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the appeal was decided ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Exemption) followed the principles of natural justice and adjudicated the case on merits before passing the order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AA(1)(b)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

For Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Hearing: 31/10/2019Pronounced: 22/11/2019

आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee , pertaining to assessment year 2019-20, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)- Kolkata passed u/s 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) dated 22/11/2018.

2.

At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of issuance of notice for hearing more than one occasion and Ld. Departmental Representative(DR), was present for the appellant Revenue. In the absence of any appearance by the assessee, the appeal is being disposed of ex parte qua the Royal Academy of Science Assessment Year:2019-20 assessee, after hearing Ld. DR for the Revenue on merits in terms of Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate, Tribunal, Rules, 1963.

3.

We heard the ld. D.R. for the revenue and perused the material available on record. We note that the ld. CIT(E) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. We note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the effected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. According to us, the ld. CIT(E) ought to have given more opportunity to the assessee to represent his case and therefore we note that the assessee did not get sufficient opportunity to represent his case before the ld. CIT(E). In addition to this, the ld. CIT(E) did not adjudicate the issue on merits. We are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before ld. CIT(E). Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(E) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the Court on 22.11.2019

More judgments on Section 12AA(1)(b)(ii)

All 94 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →