SPIRITUAL WELFARE SOCIETY,GURDAS PUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMTIONS), CHANDIGARH
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No.216 & 217/Asr/2022: A.Y.: N/A Spiritual Welfare Society, Vs. CIT (Exemptions) Dadwan, Dhariwal Gurdaspur Chandigarh. Punjab. [PAN:AAIAS4518A] (Respondent) (Appellant)
I.T.A. No.218 & 219/Asr/2022: A.Y.: N/A DeenDayal Educational And Vs. CIT (Exemptions) Charitable Society, Catholic Chandigarh. Church Jalalena road Kotkapura, Faridkot, Punjab. [PAN:AADTD7394P] (Respondent) (Appellant)
Appellant by Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, Adv. Respondent by Sh.S.R. Kaushik CIT. DR
Date of Hearing 27.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 15.03.2023
ORDER Per: Bench:
These appeals by above two assessees are directed against different orders of
the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh,[in brevity the ‘CIT (E)’] order passed u/s 12AB(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity
ITA No.216 & 217/Asr/2022 2 & ITA No.218 & 219/Asr/2022
the Act]. The assessee submitted application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of
the Act and application u/s 12AB (1) for registration u/s 80G of the Act.
Ground in ITA No.216/Asr/2022 “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AB(l)(b) of the Act, 1961 of the appellant Society by holding that there was non-compliance on the part of the assessee. 2. That notice dated 18.08.2022, 30,08.2022&10.09.2022 were never issued nor served on the email of the assessee. 3. That on 07.09.2022, the assessee had sought an adjournment for 22.09.2022 as the assessee was gathering material from multiple sources and this request was not acceded too. 4. That the assessee was trying to upload the complete reply on 21.09.2022, which the system was not accepting as the “submif button was not highlighted. Since it was a system error, on 23.09.2022 assessee filed complete reply via email which was not considered. 5. That till 23.09.2022 neither the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 was uploaded to the Income Tax profile nor served via email and therefore, there is gross violation of principles of natural justice. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AB(l)(b) of the Act, 1961 of the appellant in absence of any adverse finding regarding the aims, objects and genuineness of activities of the Society. Hence, the appellant Society should be granted registration u/s 12AB(l)(b).
ITA No.216 & 217/Asr/2022 3 & ITA No.218 & 219/Asr/2022
The appellant Society craves, leaves to alter and add to substitute any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” Ground: In ITA No.217/Asr/2022 “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration under Clause (ii) of second proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act, 1961 of the appellant Society by holding that there was non- compliance on the part of the assessee. 2. That no notice was ever issued nor served on the email of the assessee. 3. That on 07.09.2022 the assessee had sought an adjournment foi 23.09.2022 as the assessee was gathering material from multiple sources and this request was not acceded too. 4. That the assessee was trying to upload the complete reply on 21.09.2022, which the system was not accepting as the “submit” button was not highlighted. Since it was a system error, on 23.09.2022 assessee filed complete reply via email which was not considered. 5. That till 23.09.2022 neither the impugned order dated 28.09.2022 was uploaded to the Income Tax profile nor served via email anc therefore, there is gross violation of principles of natural justice. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration under Clause (ii) of second proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act 1961 of the appellant in absence of any adverse finding regarding the aims, objects and genuineness of activities of the Society Hence,
ITA No.216 & 217/Asr/2022 4 & ITA No.218 & 219/Asr/2022
the appellant Society should be granted registration under Clause (ii) of second proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G. 7. The appellant Society craves, leaves to alter and add to substitute any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 2. At the outset, both orders are filed by the appellant against the order of ld.
CIT(E), are same and identical facts which are taking together for adjudication. ITA No. 216/Asr/2022 related to appeal against cancellation of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and ITA No.217/Asr/2022 related to appeal against cancellation of
application u/s 12AB (1) are taking as lead case.
Brief fact of the case is that the assessee is a welfare society and filed the
application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac) (iii) of the Act and for registration u/s
80G the another application was filed u/s 12AB of the Act before the ld. CIT(E).
Hearing was fixed but none was present. Finally, the ld. CIT(E) decided that the
assessee was not interested to represent its case.So, both the applications were rejected ex parte. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee, Mr. Gunjeet Singh Syal, Advocate
vehemently argued and filed written submissions which are placed before the
Bench. The ld. Counsel claimed that the noticed dated 18.8.2022 and 30.08.2022
were not served to the assessee. Further the assessee got information and filed
short adjournment on dated 07.09.2022. But due to technical glitches, the assessee
finally had not able to take the opportunity to submit the documents on the date of
ITA No.216 & 217/Asr/2022 5 & ITA No.218 & 219/Asr/2022
hearing, fixed on dated 22.09.2022. Finally,the order was passedex parte without
giving the reasonable opportunity hearing to assessee. The assessee submitted the relevant documents in support of his claim which are annexed fromthe page no. 1 to 5 of APB.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee was
unable to submit the submission due to the technical glitches so on 22.09.2022.
Finally, the submission was filed to CIT(E) on 23/09/2022 through E-maili.e. next
day of the hearing date.
The ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued and placed that the ld. CIT(E) had passed
the order on 22.09.2022 so the submission on 23.09.2022 is not served any
purpose. The ld. CIT DR fully relied on the order of the revenue.
We heard the rival submission and relied on the documents available in the
record. The assessee specifically mentioned that assessee has suffered technical
glitches for submission of the documents before the revenue. The assessee was not
able to perform his duty for submission of the relevant evidence before the ld.
CIT(E). We find that there is a reasonable opportunity was denied for the assessee
to submit its claim. Thus, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion
that application filed by the assessee trust under section12A(1)(ac)(iii)&
12AB(1)were not properly considered for grant of registration under section
12AB& 80G(5)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the ld. CIT(E) to de novo
ITA No.216 & 217/Asr/2022 6 & ITA No.218 & 219/Asr/2022
consider the application of the assessee trust applied under section12A(1)(ac)(iii)&
12AB(1) of the Act and grant the registration as per law. Needless to say, the
assessee should get a reasonable opportunity of hearing in set aside proceeding
before the ld. CIT(E).
The facts of the present cases aresimilar&mutatis mutandis applicable in
ITA 218/Asr/2022 & 219/Asr/2022. We order accordingly.
In the result, the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA No. 216/Asr/2022 to 219/Asr/2022are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15.03.2023
Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) Accountant Member Judicial Member
AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T.
