OUR LADY OF ROSARY CHURCH TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT III, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5095/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 20165 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that no person should be condemned unheard and that the principle of natural justice was not followed. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Our Lady of Rosary Church Trust, was aggrieved by the denial of registration under Section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that an ex-parte order was passed by the Commissioner, violating the principle of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the denial of registration was valid when an ex-parte order was passed without proper notice and opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice.

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, MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

For Appellant: Shri Ketan S. Patel, Shri Ganesh Bare-DR
Hearing: 24/05/2016

आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31/03/2013 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, challenging denial of registration u/s 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). Though the assessee has many grounds which are interlinked to such denial of registration but before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Ketan S. Patel, contended that an ex-parte order has been passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), thus, one more opportunity should have been given to the assessee as the same is against the principle of natural justice. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri Ganesh Bare, contended that opportunity was provided to the assessee to which the assessee did not appear, therefore, there was no option except to pass an ex-parte order.

2.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. As per the assessee, the objects of the assessee trust are religious, educational, medical, relief to the poor and like objects of general public utility. It is notice that the case of the assessee was fixed for hearing for 11/03/2003 and again for 28/03/2003. It is nowhere mentioned that the notices were actually served upon the assessee. However, without going into much deliberation and keeping in view, the principle of natural justice, we are of the view that no person should be condemned unheard, therefore, this appeal is remanded back to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to be careful and to appear before the office of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax within one month from the receipt of this order alongwith necessary documents such as copy of PAN Card of Trust, photo identity cards of all the trusties, copy of return of income and audited accounts of the last three years along with note on the activities since inception as mentioned in para-2 of the impugned order.

1.

The case may be adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner either on the same date or on a mutually fixed date.

Needless to mention here that due opportunity of being heard be provided to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce the necessary evidence, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

This order was pronounced in the open in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 24/05/2016.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Rajendra) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 24/05/2016 f{x~{tÜ? P.S/.�न.स.

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant (Respective assessee) 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai, 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR,

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 →