JESUS WITH US - GATE OF HEAVEN,RAMANATHAPURAM vs. ITO WARD (1), RAMANATHAPURAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2039/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 October 2018AY 2005-063 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and remitted the appeal back for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case before the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a trust, was treated as an Association of Persons (AoP) by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2005-06. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disposed of the appeal ex-parte, which the assessee is aggrieved by.

What were the issues?

Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in disposing of the appeal ex-parte without granting a proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’/SMC BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE

For Respondent: Shri B.Sadadevan, JCIT

आदेश आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश

1.

The assessee in this appeal, directed against the order dated 19.04.2018 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai, is mainly aggrieved that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) disposed of the appeal ex-parte.

2.

The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee was a trust but for the previous year relevant to the impugned assessment year, it was not having registration under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) . As per the ITA No.2039//2018 :- 2 -:

learned A.R, the Assessing Officer had treated the assessee as AoP and computed the income without allowing the claim for capital expenditure. As per the learned AR, the Assessing Officer in the assessment had considered whole of the amount received by the assessee including donation and bank interest as total income and computed tax thereon. The contention of the learned AR was even if the assessee was considered as an unregistered trust only net income could be taxed and not the gross income. As per learned AR, assessee could not entered appearance before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) though opportunities were granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). However, according to him assessee has genuine reasons for not entering appearance and if given one more chance the assessee would canvass its case effectively.

Per contra, learned DR submitted that assessee had not 3.

utilized various opportunities given by the Assessing Officer or learned CIT(A). Thus according to him, assessee could not be given any further opportunity.

4.

I have considered the rival contentions. Learned AR has placed before us an undertaking to appear before the lower authorities if given one more chance. I find that donation and bank interest received by the assessee was taxed by the Assessing Officer

ITA No.2039//2018 :- 3 -: under a best of judgement assessment. It may be true that assessee did not enter appearance before Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) also when the case was called upon for hearing.

However, considering the undertaking given by the learned AR, I am of the opinion that assessee can be given one more chance for substantiating its case. I therefore set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and remit the appeal back to his file for consideration afresh, after giving one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5.

Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 31st day of October, 2018, at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 12AA

All 4,243 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →