Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Subera Trust, Chandigarh vs Assessee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal15 April 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

An order rejecting an application for registration under section 12AA that is passed on the same date on which the assessee's counsel first seeks adjournment, without affording the assessee a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard, is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. Where the tribunal finds that the authority has not given reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard, the proper course is to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the authority with a direction to decide the application on merits after affording such opportunity.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALCHANDIGARH BENCH 'B' CHANDIGARHBEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERITA No. 679/CHD/2014(Order under section 12AA)Subera Trust, Vs The CIT,# 30, Sector 3, Chandigarh.Chandigarh.PAN: AANTS3755M(Appellant) (Respondent)Appellant by : Shri Tej Mohan SinghRespondent by : Dr. Amarveer SinghDate of Hearing : 15.04.2015Date of Pronouncement : 15.04.2015

O R D E R

PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax-I Chandigarh dated 21/23.05.2014

rejecting the application for registration under section 12AA of the

Income Tax Act.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed

registration application under section 12AA of the Act in

prescribed form before Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax,

Chandigarh. The hearing was fixed on 29.04.2014 seeking several

informations and to file the documents. The notice, however,

returned un-served with the remarks that no such person is found

there. Further notice was issued through Inspector of the

Department for service upon assessee. It was reported that no

responsible person of the Trust was available at the given address

and servant available at the address has refused to receive notice 2

of hearing. Therefore, notice was affixed. The registered cover

also returned un-served with the remarks "No such person is

available". The hearing was again fixed for 21.05.2014 and on

that date, counsel for assessee appeared and she was asked to

produce the relevant documents as per the earlier notices issued.

She was asked to sign the order-sheet but she refused to sign the

order-sheet. Therefore, in the absence of production of the

relevant documents, the genuineness of the activities of the

assessee and charitable activities could not be verified and the

application was rejected.

3. We have heard the ld. Representatives of both the parties

and perused the material on record. The assessee in the grounds

of appeal challenged that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax

passed the impugned order without giving proper opportunity of

being heard. Therefore, impugned order is passed against the

principle of natural justice. The ld. counsel for the assessee

contended that on earlier occasion, no notice had been served

upon assessee. On 21.05.2014, assessee's counsel appeared before

Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax and request was made in writing

that since assessee was out of station for last two weeks,

therefore, no complete details could be filed and further

adjournment was sought for a suitable time. Same request was

made on 22.05.2014 explaining that since no responsible person

of the assessee is available, therefore, further time may be given to

make the compliance. Copies of the letters are filed at page 1 & 2

of the Paper Book.

4. On consideration of these facts, we are of the view the

impugned order is passed without giving reasonable sufficient 3

opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is clear from the

observation in the impugned order that on earlier occasions, the

notices could not be served upon assessee. It is for the first time

when on 21.05.2014, counsel for the assessee appeared before Ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax and sought adjournment because the

responsible persons of the assessee are not available. Same

request is made on the next date on 22.05.2014. The impugned

order is dated 21/23.05.2014. It is, therefore, clear that the

impugned order is passed on the same date when request for

adjournment was made. No sufficient time is given to the assessee

to represent the case before Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax. The

order is thus, passed against the principle of natural justice. The

impugned order is, therefore, set aside and matter in issue is

restored to the file of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax,

Chandigarh with direction to re-decide the application of

registration on merits by giving reasonable sufficient opportunity

of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall cooperate with

the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax in finalization of the matter.

5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15 th April,2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 15 t h April,2015. 'Poonam' Copy to:

The Appellant, The Respondent, The CIT(A), The CIT,DR Assistant Registrar, ITAT Chandigarh

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