IMC of ITI, KOTKAPURA v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bathinda

ITA 539/ASR/2011 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2012 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 53920914 RSA 2011
Bench Amritsar
Appeal Number ITA 539/ASR/2011
Duration Of Justice 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant IMC of ITI, KOTKAPURA
Respondent The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bathinda
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-07-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 30-07-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 25-07-2012
Next Hearing Date 25-07-2012
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 08-11-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.539(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 PAN :AAAA14222P M/S. I.M.C OF I.T.1 VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X ANAJ MANDI BATHINDA. KOTKAPURA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. S.K. BANSAL ADV. RESPONDENT BY:SH. TARSEM LAL DR DATE OF HEARING:25/07/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:30/07/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( IN SHORT CIT ) BATHINDA DATED 19.08.2011 PASSED UNDER SECTION 12AA(1)(B)(II) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT) ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S: 1. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF WORTHY CIT IN RESPEC T OF NOT ALLOWING REGISTRATION OF SOCIETY U/S 12AA IS AGAIN ST LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2 2. THAT THE ASSESSEE IMC OF ITI KAPURTHALA HAS BE EN REGISTERED AS SOCIETY AS PER THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE GOVERNMEN T FOR UTILIZATION OF SUBSIDIZED LOAN ADVANCED BY THE CENT RAL GOVERNMENT AS PER SCHEMES OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING & TO MEET DAY TO DAY WORKI NG EXPENSES OF THE ITI AT KORKAPURA AND ULTIMATELY MAK ING THE SAME SELF SUFFICIENT AND REPAYING THE LOAN TO GOVER NMENT. 3. THAT THE WORTHY CIT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTIN G THE APPLICATION OF IMC OF ITI KAPURTHALA FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATIO N U/S 12AA. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE SH. S.K. BANSAL ADVOCATE STATED THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY FOR SUBSTANTIATED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIP LE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HE REQUESTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GRANTED OPPORTU NITY FOR PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF ITS ACTIVITIES FOR GRANTING REGISTER ATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. 3. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD. DR HAS NOT RAISED ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION ON THE REQUEST MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E. HE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT BATHINDA. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO STATED THA T THERE IS DELAY OF 16 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL WHICH IS ON ACCO UNT OF DEPOSITING THE ITAT FEE AND REQUESTED FOR CONDONATION OF THE SAME. 3 5. THE LD. DR DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH US ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DELAY OF 16 DAYS DESERVES TO BE CO NDONED FOR THE REASON MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WE CONDONE T HE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. 7. ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS A ND PERUSING THE FACTS OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT NO ACTIVITY HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE SOCIETY FOR ATTAINMENT OF AIMS AND OBJECTIVES FOR WHICH IT IS INFORMED. HENCE THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT ENTILED FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT. SECONDL Y JT. CIT AS WELL AS THE AO HAS ALSO NOT RECOMMENDED FOR REGISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY AND THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FO R SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 7.1. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE EXPLAINED ABOVE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE IM PUGNED ORDER PASSED BY 4 THE LD. CIT DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE WITH THE DIREC TION TO THE LD. CIT TO PASS THE SPEAKING ORDER AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE SUBJECT. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30TH JULY 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30TH JULY 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S. IMC OF ITI KOTKAPURA. 2. THE CIT BATHINDA. 3. THE SR DR ITAT AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.