SONS OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF INDIA,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ACIT, KOTTAYAM

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust and the Assessing Officer disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee for the reason that the assessee had not maintained separate books of account for the incidental income and also on account of not filing the documentary evidences for the receipts. Challenging the said order, an appeal was filed by assessee. The assessee also filed its written submission before the ld.CIT(A) and prayed for a . Sons of the Immaculate Conception of India. personal hearing to present its case. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that even though video conferencing notice was issued to the assessee, the assessee had not replied to such notice, and therefore, decided the same without granting a personal hearing as sought for by the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order of the ld.CIT(A), the present appeal has been filed before the Tribunal, with the following grounds:-

1. “A. The order of the Appellate Authority to the extent objected to here under is illegal, arbitrary and unauthorized. B. The appellant had sort for video conferencing before the officer which was not granted for the reasons best known for the officer and therefore the order is bad in law as being violative of the provisions of the act. It further appears that the appellate authority has failed to take judicious of Annexure E and therefore also the proceeding are vitiated. C. The authorities below went wrong in bringing to tax incidental income on premise that they have not maintained separate books of account in terms of section 11(4). In the reply and the argument noted it was clearly demonstrated that the incidental income from out of the said income is minimal. Therefore the addition ought to have been restricted to those heads rather than confirming the proposal. It is submitted that only these items as set out in Annexure E warrants compliance of section 11(4A) of the act. D. The authorities below went wrong in confirming the addition of Rs 35,12,240/-under the head other income. As set out in the reply and Annexure E, the description of the details of the other income will clearly show that none of these can be assessed to tax. Therefore also the order is bad in law. For these and other grounds and documents to be submitted at the time of hearing and it is humbly prayed that the Tribunal be pleased to allow the appeal.”

At the time of arguments, the learned AR submitted that the assessee had not received the video conference hearing link notice, and therefore, they were not able to appear

The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that even though the VC notice was issued, the assessee has not appeared, and therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the material available on record. In the order the ld CIT had stated that the VC hearing notice was sent but the assessee has not appeared. It is the case of the assessee that even though the ld.CIT(A) had sent the notice, they have not received the VC link to appear before the ld.CIT(A), therefore, the assessee was not able to prove its case before the ld.CIT(A) along with necessary documents in support of their claims but the assessee was able to upload the arguments notes which is self explanatory. The ld CIT had not considered the argument notes. In the absence of the documents, the ld.CIT(A) had no occasion to consider the issue on merits. We, therefore, in the interest of justice inclined to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the ld.CIT(A) through VC. The ld.CIT(A) is directed to furnish the VC link details in advance to the assessee so as the assessee can have an effective opportunity to represent their case before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the issue back to his file for

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