SIKKIM CRICKET ASSOCIATION,GANGTOK vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1749/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 November 2024Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav (Vice President), Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member ] I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 00 Sikkim Cricket Association (PAN: AAMAS 5651 E) Vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata Appellant / ) अपीलाथȸ ( Respondent / (Ĥ×यथȸ) Date of Hearing / सुनवाई कȧ Ǔतͬथ 24.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement/ आदेश उɮघोषणा कȧ Ǔतͬथ 20.11.2024 For the Appellant/ Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से Shri Girdhar Dhelia, A.R For the Respondent/ राजèव कȧ ओर से Shri Subhendu Datta, CITDR ORDER / आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar (3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay due to genuine reasons and restored the issue back to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to decide the matter de novo after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sikkim Cricket Association, filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 90 days due to the illness of an office bearer. The original order rejecting registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) was passed ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order rejecting registration was justified and if the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

ORDER / आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(E)”] dated 22.03.2024.

2.

At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 90 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The delay was stated to be on account of illness of Mr. Mukesh Agarwal who is honorary member/office bearer of the assessee trust and was not keeping good health for the last six months. We note that the said person is an elderly person and was not available as is apparent from the medical reports furnished before us. Accordingly the delay of 90 days is condoned as the same is for genuine and bonafide reasons.

3.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the order rejecting registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act was passed ex-parte when the assessee failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(E) on the various dates given to furnish the documents/evidences to prove the financial transactions , genuineness and nature of activities carried on by the trust. In our opinion, no one should be condemned without hearing as the same is not in consonance with the principle of natural justice. In our opinion the ends of justice would be well served if the assessee is given one more opportunity to present its case before the Ld. CIT(E ). Accordingly we restore the issue back to the file of ld CIT( E) with the direction to decide the same de novo after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

4.

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

Order is pronounced in the open court on 20th November, 2024

More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)

All 1,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →