Subera Trust, Chandigarh vs Assessee
- CitationITA No. 679/CHD/2014
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
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