Progressive Charitable Trust, Lucknow vs Assessee
- CitationITA No.730/LKW/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A quasi-judicial authority deciding an application for registration under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 must afford the applicant a proper opportunity of being heard before deciding it on merits; an order disposing of such an application ex parte on the first date of hearing, after refusing an adjournment, without affording any real opportunity to prosecute the application, is not a proper exercise of that function and is liable to be set aside, with the matter restored for re-adjudication on merits after hearing the applicant.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax denying registration under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called in short "the Act").
2. During the course of hearing of the appeal, our attention was invited to the fact that in response to notice issued by the office of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri. Vinay Srivastava, Advocate has appeared and filed a power of attorney in his favour and sought adjournment. The adjournment was rejected by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax on the ground that Shri. Subhash Tuli, CA, whose absence is cited as the reason for adjournment, was not authorized to appear on behalf of the assessee. The ld. Commissioner of Income-tax accordingly disposed of the application for grant of registration under section 12AA of the Act ex-parte and rejected the request for grant of registration. It is also noted that the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax has :-2-:
not afforded any opportunity to the assessee to prosecute its application for registration and on the very first day of hearing, it was dismissed.
3. The ld. D.R. has simply placed reliance upon the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax.
4. Having carefully examined the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, we find that the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax has not afforded sufficient opportunity to the assessee except one when the adjournment was sought by the ld. counsel for the assessee. The action of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax does not appears to be proper as the quasi judicial authority is required to afford proper opportunity of being heard to the applicant/assessee. We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax and restore the matter to his file with a direction to re-adjudicate the application for grant of registration under section 12AA on merit after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the captioned page.
Sd/- Sd/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
DATED: 27th February, 2015 JJ:2002
Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR Assistant Registrar
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free