THE PATIALA IMPROVEMENT TRUST,CHOTTI BARADARI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE , CHANDIGARH
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Patiala Improvement Trust, claimed exemption under Section 11. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption, holding that the Trust's activities were not charitable. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-compliance with notices.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Whether the Trust's activities qualify for exemption under Section 11.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI A.D.JAIN & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV
आदेश/ORDER
PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT
This is assessee's appeal for assessment year 2016-17 against the order dated 18.05.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi. The following grounds have been taken :
The learned CIT Appeal has erred in dismissing the appeal without any opportunity and without service of any notice, hence rejection is arbitrary and unjustified.
ITA 457/CHD/2023 A.Y.2016-17 Page 2 of 4 2. Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT appeal has erred is not deciding the following ground of appeal on merit, (i) That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in framing assessment which is against natural justice. As no show cause was issued and notice dt. 16.07.2018 and 25.10.2018 were never serviced. Hence the assessment may be declared as null and void, (ii) That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing claim under section 11 in view of Amendment made by finance Act. 2008, 2010 and 2015 of sec. 2(15) in which proviso has been provided but the income is not derived from the said activities covered in the revised definition of sec.2 (15) of the Income Tax Act. Hence exemption may be allowed. (iii) That the learned assessing officer has erred in disallowing exemption under section 11 of the Income tax Act, while interpreting few transaction as business transaction ignoring the fact of overall purpose of the trust for planning, development and improvement. established by the Government of Punjab under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. The object of the Trust is to bring about improvement in the town of Patiala by providing street, housing facilities, development of parks, roads, providing of drinking water etc. The assessee claimed exemption u/s 11 of the Act in its ITR under “General Public Utility” as per Section 2(15) of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 142(1) dated 22.01.2018 and again on 16.7.2018 to the assessee but the assessee did not comply with the directions to explain the nature of the activities being carried out by the Trust. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer decided the appeal of the assessee on the basis of the ITA 457/CHD/2023 A.Y.2016-17 Page 3 of 4 information available on record and held that the assessee was not carrying out any activity in the nature of charity under “General Public Utility” and the activities of the Trust w.r.t. acquisition of lands, development of land and sale in the shape of plots, flats, floats and commercial booths at market rates after calling the application from the public with some registration fee cannot be treated as charitable activities. The Assessing Officer held the assessee to be not eligible for exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
3. The assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A).
Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee was issued and served various notices u/s 250 of the Act to present his contentions and supporting documents. The said notices remain un-complied with. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have found that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the basis of non-compliance of the notices issued by the office of the ld. CIT(A). But there is nothing on record to prove that the ITA 457/CHD/2023 A.Y.2016-17 Page 4 of 4 assessee was issued proper notices to present his case.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was not afforded proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Therefore, in the interest of justice, the file is restored to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(Exemptions).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 12th March,2024.
More judgments on Section 11
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Mata Lachmi Rotary Charitable Society… vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward - 1…ITA 310/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 531/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 530/NAG/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026