Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri Mahavir Singh, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM]
ORDER Per Shri Mahavir Singh, JM:
This appeal by assessee are arising out of separate orders of DIT(E), Kolkata in M. Nos. DIT(E)/8E/218/2012-13/3248-50 and DIT(E)/8E/218/2012-13/3251-53 both dated 05.02.2013.
2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee in is against the order of DIT(E) rejecting the application for registration u/s. 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). For this, assessee has raised following two effective grounds i.e. ground nos. 1 and 2: “1. For that the DIT(E) has erred in rejecting the application for registration u/s. 12AA of the Income tax Act, 1961 solely on the basis that the notice for hearing issued to appellant was returned unserved without having specified the reason for which the notice was unserved and such action of the Ld. DIT(E) is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and against the facts of the case.
2. For that the DIT(E) has erred in rejecting the application for registration u/s. 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without giving adequate opportunity and also without going into the merits of the case and such action of the Ld. DIT(E) is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and against the facts of the case.”
The only issue in this appeal of assessee in is against the order of DIT(E) rejecting the grant of approval u/s. 80(G)(5)(vi) of the Act “Act”). For this, assessee has raised following two effective grounds i.e. ground nos. 1 and 2: “1. For that the DIT(E) has erred in rejecting the grant of approval u/s. 80(G)(5)(vi) of the Income tax Act, 1961 solely on the basis that the application for registration u/s. 12AA was rejected and such action of the Ld. DIT(E) is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and against the facts of the case.
For that the DIT(E) has erred in rejecting the grant of approval u/s. 80(G)(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without giving adequate opportunity and also without going into the merits of the case and such action of the Ld. DIT(E) is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and against the facts of the case.” 2. At the outset, for both the appeals, Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the orders of DIT(E) and stated that the orders passed by him are non- speaking order and he has not adjudicated the issues and also adequate opportunity was not given to the assessee.
We have gone through the grounds raised
by the assessee in both the appeals and seen that none of the grounds have adjudicated by DIT(E) in his appellate order. We also find that the orders of DIT(E) are cryptic one and non-speaking. There is no iota of merits discussed in the orders by DIT(E). The duty of the DIT(E) is to pass a speaking order after controverting all the facts given by assessee and decide the issue with reasons. Hence, we quash the orders of DIT(E) and remit the appeals back to his file for fresh adjudication with the above direction. We order accordingly. The appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
4. In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
5. Order is pronounced in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) (Mahavir Singh) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Dated : 15th October, 2015