Indian Academy of Pediatrics Bangalore (BPS), Bangalore v. DIT, Bangalore

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE B BENCH BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI JM AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY AM ITA NOS.1224 & 1225(BANG.)/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : NA ) THE INDIAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS C/O INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH SOUTH HOSPITAL COMPLEX DHARMARAM POST BANGALORE-560 029 APPELLANT VS THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTIONS) BANGALORE. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI H.N.KHINCHA CA REVENUE BY : SHRI R.TAYENG CIT O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI JM : BOTH ARE ASSESSEES APPEALS AND ARE ARISING FROM TH E SAME ORDER OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EX.)BANGALORE DATED 25- 09-2009 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A A OF THE AND RECOGNITION U/S 80G OF THE IT ACT 1961 WAS DENIED. SO THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. ITA NO.1225(B)/2009 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF DIT(EX.) IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRAT ION U/S 12AA(1)(B) OF THE IT ACT ON THE GROUND OF NON-COMPLIANCE TO THE PROCEDURAL FORMALITIES AND HOLDING THAT DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST. ITA NOS.1224 & 1245(B)/09 2 3. AT THE OUTSET OF HEARING IT IS SEEN THAT THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THERE IS A DEL AY OF 25 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN A PPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONGWITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST DR. RAGHUPATHY GIVING REASONS FOR T HE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE US. IN THE SAID APPLICATION IT I S MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE PETITIONER WAS NOT AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE ORDER HAS ALREADY BEEN PASSED AND IS LYING WITH THE HOSPITAL STAFF SI NCE 30-09-2009 AND ONLY ON ENQUIRY WITH ITS AUDITORS THE ASSESSEE CAM E TO KNOW ABOUT THE ORDER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS SOON AS THE PETITI ONER BECAME AWARE OF THE ORDER IT FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO WILFUL DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BUT IS DUE TO REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE APPLICATION. 4. HAVING HEARD BOTH PARTIES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT DUE TO ANY WILLFUL CONDU CT OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IS REASONABLE AND DUE TO SUFFICIENT CAUSE. THEREFO RE WE ARE INCLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND HEAR THE APPEALS. 5. ON MERITS OF THE APPEAL THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED THE NO TICE FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUC E VARIOUS DETAILS CALLED FOR TIME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE LETTER OF ASSESSING OFFICER THE DETAILS WERE TO BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 18-09-2009. THIS LETTER DATED 08-09-2009 WAS RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE BEARER OF THE SOCIETY ONLY IN THE FIRST WEEK OF OCTOBER 2009. BEFORE THE SOC IETY COULD REPLY THE ORDER U/S 12AA(1)(B)(II) OF THE IT ACT WAS PASSED O N 25-09-2009. HE ITA NOS.1224 & 1245(B)/09 3 FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS WITH IT AND THEREFORE IT MAY BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNI TY TO PRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE THE DIT(EXP.) THE LEARNED DR HAD NO OBJECTI ON TO THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE SAME WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF DIT(EXP.) DATED 25-09-2009 AND REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE DIT(EXP.) FOR DE-NOVO CONSIDERATION AFTER TAKING I NTO CONSIDERATION THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.1224(B)/2009 7. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF DIT(EXP.) DATED 25-09-2009 REJECTING THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF RECOGNITION U/S 80G(5)(VI) OF THE IT ACT. THERE IS A DELAY OF 25 DAYS IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL ALSO AND THE REASONS GIVEN ARE THE SAME AS IN THE AFORESAID APPEAL. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN THE REIN THE DELAY IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL IS ALSO CONDONED. 8. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL WE FIND THAT THE DIT(EXP.) HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF RECOGNITI ON U/S 80G(5)(VI) OF THE IT ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEES APPLIC ATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA(1)(B) WAS REJECTED BY THE ORDER DATED 25-0 9-2009 AND THEREFORE THIS APPLICATION ALSO NEEDS TO BE REJECT ED. 9. WE HAVE REMANDED THE ISSUE OF THE REGISTRATION U /S 12AA TO THE FILE OF THE DIT(EXP.) AND THEREFORE THIS APPLI CATION BEING CONSEQUENTIAL WE REMAND THIS ISSUE ALSO TO THE FIL E OF DIT(EXP.) WITH A SIMILAR DIRECTION. ITA NOS.1224 & 1245(B)/09 4 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 13 TH APRIL 2010. (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (SMT. P. MADHA VI DEVI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: BANGALORE DATED: 13-04-2010 AM* COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. GF(BLORE) 7. GF(DELHI) BY ORDER AR ITAT BANGALORE