M/S. AROGYAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST,DEHRADUN vs. CIT, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6388/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 November 20153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that there was no proof of service of notices on the assessee and that the assessee should not be condemned unheard. The case was set aside to the CIT for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust applied for registration under Section 12A. The CIT rejected the application after the assessee failed to comply with notices for information and hearing. The assessee appealed, arguing the notices were not properly served.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT properly rejected the application for registration under Section 12A without ensuring proper service of notices and providing an opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI

Hearing: 20.10.2015Pronounced: 04.11.2015

ORDER

Per N. K. Saini, AM:

1.

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 25.09.2013 of ld. CIT, Dehradun.

2.

The only ground raised in this appeal reads as under:

“That the learned CIT has erred on facts and in law in rejecting the appellant trust’s application for registration under section 12A of the Act, without verifying the fact of service of notices issued. The Appellant craves leave to reserve its right to add, to delete from, amend, alter or modify its “Grounds of Appeal

” at any time before or at the time of hearing.”

3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed application dated 28.03.2013 for registration u/s 12A(a) of the Income Tax Act, 2 Arogyam Educational Trust 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The ld. CIT vide letter dated 04.04.2013 asked the assessee to furnish certain information on 23.04.2013. Since there was no compliance, the ld. CIT again issued a notice on 14.08.2013 fixing the case for hearing on 27.08.2013. On the said date also the notice remained uncomplied with, therefore, the application of the assessee was rejected.

4.

Now the assessee is in appeal. During the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee, therefore, the case is decided ex-parte after hearing the ld. CIT DR on merit. The ld. CIT DR submitted that the assessee did not cooperate inspite of the service of notices. It was stated that the notices of hearing issued by the ld. CIT, Dehradun, did not returned back, therefore, it is presumed that those were served. The reliance was placed on the following case laws:

� CIT Vs Shanker Lal Ved Prakash (2008) 300 ITR 243 (Del) � Capital Gem Overseas (P.) Ltd. Vs ITO (2006) 101 ITD 117 (Del) 5. The ld. CIT DR also submitted that the assessee did not furnish the requisite details asked by the ld. CIT, therefore, the application moved by the assessee u/s 12A(a) of the Act was rightly rejected.

6.

We have considered the submissions of the ld. CIT DR and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT mentioned in the impugned order that the notice 3 Arogyam Educational Trust of hearing on 27.08.2013 was sent on 14.08.2013. However, nothing is brought on record that the said notice was served on the assessee. It is also not clear as to whether the notice was sent by ordinary post or speed post/registered post. Moreover, the ld. CIT in the impugned order has not mentioned as to whether any documents/evidences were furnished by the assessee alongwith the application moved for registration u/s 12A(a) of the Act. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “Audi Alteram Partem”. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the ld. CIT to be decided afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to co-operate and not to seek undue or unwarranted adjournments.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 04/11/2015)

More judgments on Section 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →