M/s. David & David Trust, CHENNAI v. ITO, Nagercoil

ITA 1947/CHNY/2010 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 194721714 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AABTD2402L
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 1947/CHNY/2010
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant M/s. David & David Trust, CHENNAI
Respondent ITO, Nagercoil
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 12-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 12-09-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 12-09-2011
Next Hearing Date 12-09-2011
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 18-11-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1947(MDS)/2010 M/S. DAVID & DAVID TRUST NO.6/28-B PARVATHIPURAM TRIVANDRUM ROAD NAGERCOIL 629 003. PAN AABTD2402L VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD I(1) NAGERCOIL. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : DR. I.VIJAY AKUMAR IRS CIT-DR. DATE OF HEARING : 12 TH SEPTEMBER 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 TH SEPTEMBER 2011 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-I AT MADURAI DAT ED 26-10-2009 WHEREIN HE HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RECOGNITION UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT 1961. - - ITA NO.1947 OF 2010 2 2. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES IN DETAIL. 3. THERE IS A DELAY OF 19 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPE AL BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ON HEARING THE E XPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WE FIND THAT THE DELAY WAS CAUSED FOR REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORD INGLY THE DELAY IS CONDONED. THIS APPEAL IS THUS ADMITTED FO R HEARING. 4. WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAS ACTED UPON CERTAIN SURMISES AND PREMISES NOT SUPPORTED BY FAC TUAL AND ACTUAL VERIFICATION. THE COMMISSIONER HAS STATED T HAT A REPORT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. HE FURT HER SAYS THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS NOT STATED AS TO WHETHE R THE ASSESSEE QUALIFIES FOR THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80 G OF THE ACT. IT SHOWS THAT THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS ONLY THEORETICAL. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY. THE COMMISSIONER ALSO DID NOT CAUSE ANY ENQUIRY. H IS CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS NOT MADE OUT ANY CASE M ENTIONING FUND REQUIREMENT FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND THEREFO RE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80G OF TH E ACT. 5. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX WE FIND THAT HE HAS REJECTED THE APPLIC ATION OF THE - - ITA NO.1947 OF 2010 3 ASSESSEE WITHOUT MAKING PROPER ENQUIRIES. HE HAS MA DE CERTAIN GENERAL OBSERVATIONS BUT MANY OF THEM BEING NOT VA LID IN LAW. 6. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX A ND REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO HIM TO RECONSIDER THE APPLICATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE SHAL L BE GIVEN AN EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON MONDAY THE 12 TH OF SEPTEMBER 2011 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI DATED THE 12 TH SEPTEMBER 2011. V.A.P. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.