Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 399/JPR/2022
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 cuke Agarwal Shiksha Samiti ITO,’ 01, Agarwal College Campus Vs. Ward-5(3), Jaipur. Agrasen Katla Agra Road, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAAA 9839 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri A. S. Nehara (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing 22/02/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 28/02/2023 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “NFAC/CIT(A)”], dated 12.09.2022 for the assessment years 2019-20.
The assessee has raised the following grounds:-
2.
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in passing order ex parte, i.e. without affording sufficient opportunity of being heard. Appellant prays Agarwal Shiksha Samiti vs. ITO that a very short notice dated 10.09.2022 was issued fixing the hearing on 12.09.2022 and appeal was decided on 12.09.2022 despite the fact that assessee had filed adjournment on 12.09.2022 itself, therefore order passed by ld.CIT(A) is against the principle of natural justice and deserves to be set aside.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Id.CIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing the appeal and thus in upholding the action of CPC in not rectifying the intimation order passed u/s 143(1)(a) wherein the CPC has erred in not allowing the amount set apart @ 15% being Rs. 1,54,23,446/- for application towards charitable activity purposes from the income derived from the property held under trust despite the fact that assesse samite is registered u/s 12AA having registration no. 1669 dated 01.04.2010. Appellant prays that intimation passed by CPC has mistake, which is apparent from record and deserves to be rectified u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Without Prejudice to above and in the alternate – 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has erred confirming the rectification order passed by CPC, without considering the response given by the assesse in terms of notice u/s 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961, wherein it has been specifically claimed that assesse samiti is registered u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the IT Act, 1961 and the income of the samiti is exempted u/s 10 and therefore the consequent additions so made deserves to be deleted.
4. That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal.”
The assessee has filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who after hearing the contention of the assessee dismissed the appeal of Agarwal Shiksha Samiti vs. ITO the assessee by giving his following relevant findings on the issue:- “5.Grounds of Appeal Nos.1&2: On these grounds of appeal, the appellant has taken a plea that the AO has erred in not rectifying the intimation order passed u/s 143(1)(a) wherein the CPC has erred in not allowing the amount set apart at the rate 15 percent being Rs. 1,54,23,446/- for application towards charitable activity purposes from the income derived from the property held under trust despite the fact that appellant samite is registered u/s 12AA having registration no. 1669 dated 01.04.2010 thus the mistake being apparent from record and deserves to be rectified u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and CPC has also erred in passing the rectification order without considering the response given by the assesse in terms of notice u/s 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961, wherein it has been specifically claimed that appellant samiti is registered u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the IT Act, 1961 and the income of the samiti is exempted u/s 10. 5.2 I have gone through the facts of the case, Grounds of Appeal filed alongwith Form No.35 and the assessment order passed by the AO. It is noted that the AO while processing the return of income has disallowed the amount @15% being Rs.1,54,23,446/- for application towards charitable activity purposes from the income derived from the property held under trust. On perusal of grounds of appeal, it is noted the appellant are registered u/s 12AA having registration no. 1669 dated 01.04.2010 and also claimed that appellant samiti is also registered u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the IT Act, 1961 and the income of the samiti is exempted u/s 10 of the Act. The appellant only submitted this contention in the form of 'Grounds of appeals' but did not give any documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of his contention. 5.3 Therefore, in view of the above discussed facts, it is clear that the case of the appellant has been fixed for various dates but no reply has been given by the appellant. Therefore, it is presumed that the appellant is not interested in pursuing his appeal. Therefore, the undersigned sees no reason to interfere with the orders of the Ld. Assessing Officer. Thus, the action of the AO is confirmed and the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed.”
Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities.
Agarwal Shiksha Samiti vs. ITO 5. We have considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the authorities and the material available on record. The Bench noted that the order of the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order even though the assessee as seek adjournment, where the screen short already part of the submission of the assessee but on the above and careful perusal of the screen short, we are of the considered view that even though that the assessee sought adjournment. The ld. CIT(A) has proceeded to decide the appeal of the assessee on ex-parte, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have been decided the appeal on merit. Hence, it will be in the interest of equity and justice to restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to examine the case afresh but by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce the documentary evidences concerning the issue in question and will cooperate the ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/02/2023. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 28/02/2023. *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Agarwal Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur.