ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. SHAKUNTALA BIDYADHAR TRUST, SAMBALPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.408/CTK/2014 Assessment Year :2010-2011

ACIT, Circle 2(2), Sambalpur Vs. Shakuntala Bidyadhar Trust, Nivedita, Kalyan Nagar, Budharaja, dist: Sambalpur PAN/GIR No. AABTS 1540 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

C.O.No.23/CTK/2016 (arising out of ITA No.408/CTK/2014) Assessment Year :2010-2011

Shakuntala Bidyadhar Trust, Vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2), Sambalpur Nivedita, Kalyan Nagar, Budharaja, dist: Sambalpur PAN/GIR No. AABTS 1540 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : S/Shri B.Panda, B.R.Panda, AR Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Date of Hearing : 17 /01/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : 17/01/ 2017

O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A)-II,

Bhubaneswar, dated 22.8.2014, for the assessment year 2010-2011. The

assessee has also filed cross objection.

2 ITA No.40 8/CTK/2014 C.O.No.23/CTK/2016 Asse ss ment Y ear :20 10- 201 1

“1. The ld CIT(A) has erred in giving full relief to the assessee trust as the activities of the assessee trust are not charitable in nature and it did not qualify to claim exemption u/s.11 of the I.T.Act, 1961. 2. The ld CIT(A) has erred in accepting the additional documentary evidences produced by the assessee during the hearing of the appeal without giving opportunity of being heard to the AO which is violating Rule 46A(3) of I.T.Rules, 1962.”

adjudicating the appeal of the assessee has accepted the additional evidence

in violation of Rule 46A of I.T.Rules, 1962. Hence, the order of ld CIT(A) is

not sustainable. For this, he relied on para 12 page 4 of ld CIT(A)’s order.

submitted that the matter may be restored back to the file of ld CIT(A) for

adjudicating the appeal of the assessee afresh after calling for a Remand

Report from the Assessing officer on the additional evidences filed by the

assessee before ld CIT(A).

authorities and materials available on record. I find that ld CIT(A) while

adjudicating the appeal of the assessee in para 12 page 4 has held as under:

“This is therefore a case where the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 apply inasmuch as they relate to the

3 ITA No.40 8/CTK/2014 C.O.No.23/CTK/2016 Asse ss ment Y ear :20 10- 201 1

existence of sufficient cause and the lack of providing or adequate opportunity to the Appellant that prevented him from submitting substantiating and supporting evidences in his possession. I am duty bound to accept the documents submitted before me by the Appellant, which include evidences bearing out the tax exempt nature of its activities, evidences that include copies of the Trust Deed, certificate of registration, Sources from where the funds were received, Utilisation certificate, confirmations of receipts by the beneficiaries and photographs testifying to activities.” 6. Therefore, in view of submissions of both the parties, I set aside the

order of ld CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for adjudicating the

appeal of the assessee afresh after allowing reasonable and proper

opportunity of hearing to the assessee and after calling a remand report from

the Assessing Officer on the additional evidences filed by the assessee before

ld CIT(A).

CIT(A). As the appeal of the revenue is restored back to the file of ld CIT(A)

for fresh adjudication, the cross objection of the assessee has become

infructious and hence, dismissed.

purposes and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed.

Sd/- (N.S Saini) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 17/01 /2017

4 ITA No.40 8/CTK/2014 C.O.No.23/CTK/2016 Asse ss ment Y ear :20 10- 201 1

B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : ACIT, Circle 2(2), Sambalpur 2. The Respondent. Shakuntala Bidyadhar Trust, Nivedita, Kalyan Nagar, Budharaja, dist: Sambalpur 3. The CIT(A)-II Bhubaneswar. 4. CIT, Sambalpur 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy//

ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT, Cuttack