Raghuvanshi Charitable Trust, New Delhi v. DIT(E), New Delhi

ITA 2173/DEL/2010 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 217320114 RSA 2010
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 2173/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant Raghuvanshi Charitable Trust, New Delhi
Respondent DIT(E), New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 08-07-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 08-07-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 08-07-2010
Next Hearing Date 08-07-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 07-05-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F ; NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI JM AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA A M I.T.A. NO.2173/DEL OF 2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: - RAGHUVANSHI CHARITABLE TRUST DIRECTOR OF INCOM E-TAX(E) 105 RAKESH DEEP 11 COMMERCIAL VS NEW DEL HI. COMPLEX GULMOHAR ENCLAVE NEW DELHI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI RANJAN CHOPRA RESPONDENT BY: SMT. BANITA DEVI NAROEM SR. DR ORDER PER C.L. SETHI JM THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.3.2010 PASSED U/S 80G(5)(VI) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT) RE AD WITH RULE 11AA OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES 1962 PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR O F INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE CAREFULL Y GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF ORDER PASSED BY DIT(E) WE FIND THAT THE DIT(E) HAS PASSED THIS ORDER EX PARTE INASMUCH AS A PERIOD OF 51 DAYS HAD ALREADY ELAPSED TILL THE LAST DATE OF HEARING FIXED ON 8.2.2010 WHEN THE 2 ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR AND FINDING NO OTHER ALT ERNATIVE THE DIT(E) DECIDED THE ISSUE EX PARTE. ON PERUSAL OF IMPUGNED ORDER WE FURTHER FIND THAT DIRECTOR ISSUED A LETTER DATED 25.1.2010 REQUE STING THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND EXPLANATIONS ON OR BEF ORE 5.2.2010. THE ASSESSEE THEN FILED ITS REPLY DATED 4.2.2010 AND SU BMITTED THE SAME IN DAK OF THE OFFICE ON 5.2.2010. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE REQUIRED DETAILS WERE FURNISHED TO THE DIT(E) BUT NO PERSONA L HEARING HAD TAKEN PLACE NOR ALL THE DETAILS WERE EXAMINED PROPERLY. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HAVING NOTED THE FACT THAT DIT(E) HAD DEC IDED THE ISSUE EX PARTE WITHOUT GIVING ANY FURTHER TIME TO THE ASSESSEE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LET THIS MATTER BE FRESHLY EXAMINED BY TH E DIT(E) AFTER PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF PERSONAL HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE DU RING THE COURSE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN ITS CASE WITH REFERENCE TO THE VARIOUS DETAILS OR DOCUMENTS OR ACCOUNTS FURNISHED BY THE A SSESSEE. WE THEREFORE RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF DIT(E) FOR H IS FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER EXAMINING AND VERIFYING EACH AND EVERY DETAIL OR DO CUMENT OR EXPLANATION OR ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER GI VING AN OPPORTUNITY OF PERSONAL HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DO HEREBY DIR ECT THE ASSESSEE NOT TO INDULGE IN DILATORY TACTICS BY SEEKING UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENTS BUT TO 3 COOPERATE WITH THE DIT(E) TO DISPOSE THE MATTER AT THE EARLIEST AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW CONTAINED IN THAT BEHALF. WE ORDE R ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 8 TH JULY 2010 IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE HEARING WAS OVER. (A.K. GARODIA) (C.L. SETHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 8 TH JULY 2010 VIJAY COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) NEW DELHI. 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR