Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust,, ... vs The Dy. Director Of Income Tax (Exmp.),, ... on 12 December, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
" A " BENCH, AHMEDABAD
BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And
MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1759/Ahd/2017
( नधा रण वष /Assessment Year : 2010-11 )
Nirman Foundation Charitable बनाम/ The Dy.DIT
Trust Vs. (Exemptions)
Opp. Sabri Apartment Ahmedabad
B/h. Indrapastha Bungalows
Vastrapur, Ahmedabad-380057
थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . / PAN/GIR No. : AABTN 0243 R
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent)
अपीलाथ ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, AR
यथ क ओर से/Respondent by: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR
ु वाई क तार ख/
सन Date of Heari ng 05/11/2018
घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronounce ment 12 /12/2018
आदे श / O R D E R
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXI, Ahmedabad [CIT(A) in short] vide appeal no.CIT(A)-XXI/406/11-12 dated 11/02/2014 arising in the assessment order passed under s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 25/02/2013 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10.
2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing an ex-parte order confirming the additions made by ITA No.1759/Ahd/2017 Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust vs. Dy.DIT (E) Asst.Year - 2010-11 -2- the A.O. without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant which is against the principles of natural justice and law hence the same being illegal and bad in law requires to be cancelled.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the appellant has already complied with the notices issued and filed an adjournment applications on various dates.
3. Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,40,30,000/- made by the Dy.Director of Income Tax (Exemption) being an amount of Corpus Donation on the ground of cancellation of registration of Trust u/s.12AA of the I.T.Act, 1961 in earlier year for which the matter was pending before the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad at the relevant point of time.
4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the Dy.Director of Income Tax (Exemption) being an amount of repayment of term loan of Rs.1,30,25,866/- as application of income as per provision of the law.
2. At the outset, we note that there was a delay of 1166 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. There was condonation petition filed by the assessee dated 15th July 2017. The contents of the application read as under:
" Date: 15 July 2017 To ITA No.1759/Ahd/2017 Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust vs. Dy.DIT (E) Asst.Year - 2010-11 -3- The Asst. Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad.
Sub: Request for the condonation of delay in the filing of appeal in the case of Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust for A.Y.2010-11 - reg.
Sir, -
In connection with the above it is submitted as under:
1. The assessee trust had filed return of income on 31.3.2011 declaring total deficit of Rs.(-)7,31,950/- after claiming exemption to the extent of Rs.2,84,60,112/-. The assessment came to be completed u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 25.02.2013. While completing the assessment, an addition of Rs. 1,40.30,0007- had come to be made on the ground that the trust was not eligible for deduction u/s.11(l)(d) of the Act. Accordingly, corpus donation u/s. ll(l)(d) of the Act came to be disallowed and was added to the total income.
2. It may be pointed out that the exemption cane to be disallowed on account of the fact that the registration of the trust u/s. 12AA of the Act had been cancelled by DIT(E), .Ahmedabad vide order dated 16.03.2011. The matter was pursued before the Hon'ble 1TAT and appeal was filed against the cancellation of the registration u/s. 12AA of the Act. The Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 20.6.2014 set aside the issue of registration to the D1T(E), Ahmedabad. The Lei. DIT(E), Ahmedabad vide order dated 16.10.2015 had granted registration u/s. 12AA of the Act. In the meantime the assessment of the assessee trust came to be completed on 25.2.2013. Only on account of the withdrawal of registration u/s. 12AA, in the intervening period addition came to be made in the case of the assessee trust.
3. The assessee trust in the meantime had preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)-XX1, Ahmedabad. Various adjournments were sought for on the ground that exemption u/s.11(1)(d) has come to be cancelled only on account of withdrawal of registration u/s. 12AA of the act. This matter was pending before the Hon'ble ITAT and therefore till this issue was finally adjudicated, the appellate proceedings be kept pending. The appeal however came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.2.2015 i.e. prior to the order being set aside by ITA No.1759/Ahd/2017 Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust vs. Dy.DIT (E) Asst.Year - 2010-11 -4- the Hon'ble ITAT. The assessee trust had engaged a Chartered Accountant with regards the matter pending before the Income Tax Department who was assisted by our accountant Shri Ashish Bhavsar. The trustees had assigned this responsibility to the above referred persons and were not actively involved in the litigation matter.
4. This order was duly served upon the accountant Mr. Ashish Bhavsar in March, 2014 and who had left the services and was not engaged with the trust at that point of time. He had not intimated either the managing trustee or other trustees or any responsible persons of the trust with regard to the receipt of such order by him. Therefore, the assessee trust or its trustees were not aware of the outcome of the appeal or the receipt of such order with their ex employee Shri Ashish Eshavsar.
5. It may not be out of place to point out that on account of cancellation of registration, the assessee trust had been embroiled in litigation for various assessment years and multiple authorities commencing from AY 2008-09 to 2012-13. The appeals had been filed at various stages including before the Ld. CIT(A) / ITAT. In the meantime, the assessee trust was in receipt of recovery notice for AY 2010-11. The matter was immediately looked into and it was at that point of time, we realized that the appeal filed for A.Y.2010-11 had already been decided and the order in question was already served on the ex employee Shri Ashish Bhavsar. On enquiry, Shri Ashish Bhavsar accepted this omission on his part and handed over the order in the month of July, 2017. Immediately on priority basis, all efforts had been made to file appeal.
6. We are enclosing copy of affidavit from Shri Ashish Bhavsar. ex- Accountant on whom the order was served and who failed to communicate the same and hand over to the trust.
We are also enclosing affidavit of the Managing Trustee Shri Ashish Desai narrating the circumstances on account of which there was delay in fling of the appeal.
7. It is respectfully submitted that the assessee trust is running school where more than 3000 children are studying. Even the Revenue has subsequently accepted the activities of the trust as being charitable in nature. The assessee trust has been visited with huge tax liability which has not been litigated further only on account of the negligence of the former employee ITA No.1759/Ahd/2017 Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust vs. Dy.DIT (E) Asst.Year - 2010-11 -5- though the matter has now been decided in the favour of the assessee trust. It is also worthwhile to note that the assessee trust is embroiled in litigation for various assessment years. This is one solitary instance of appeal of appeal not having been filed by the assessee trust. In all the remaining years, the assessee trust had been very vigilant in the discharge of its duties and ensure the timely compliance and other formalities. The assessee trust has been only visited with such huge tax liability on account of the presumption at that point of time that registration u/s. 12AA has been cancelled. If the totality of the circumstances are looked into, the registration u/s. 12AA has been granted subsequently and assessee is eligible for exemption u/s. 11/13/14.
8. There being a reasonable cause for the delay in fling of appeal which was an innocent omission and there was no ulterior motive or mala fide since nothing had to be gained by not filing the appeal on time, it is requested that the delay of 1166 days may kindjy be condoned.
Thanking You, Yours Faithfully, For Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust"
3. The managing trustee of the assessee trust has also filed the affidavit vide dated 15th July 2017. The extract of the affidavit is reproduced as under:
"AFFIDAVIT I, Ashish J. Desai, Adult, Indian Inhabitant, residing at B. No. 12, Rivera 30 Bunglows, Opp. Shivalik Arcade, Near Auda Garden, Prahladnagar, Satellite, Ahmedabad - 380015, Managing trustee of the trust Nimtan Foundation Charitable Trust of Ahmedabad do hereby solemnly state and declare on oath as under: -
That I was a medical Doctor who with a view to impart and spread education set up the aforesaid charitable Trust, being a educational institution for the benefit of public at large. That the trust Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust of Ahmedabad is assessed to tax under PAN- AABTN0243R with the DD1T (Exemption), Officer, Ahmedabad. That the trust had employed one Mr. Ashish ITA No.1759/Ahd/2017 Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust vs. Dy.DIT (E) Asst.Year - 2010-11 -6- Bhavsar for the accounting and taxation work of the trust who was rendering services till April. 2014.
That in the case of aforesaid Trust assessment for all the years from assessment year 2008-09 to 2012-13 were completed making additions for the corpus donations u/s. 1l(1)(d) of the Act on the ground that the registration of the Trust has been cancelled in earlier years denying the exemptions u/s.l2AA of the I.T.Act, 1961. That the registration of the Trust u/s 12AA came to be withdrawn vide order dated 16.03.20! 1 as a consequence of which the claim of exemption u/s 11/12/13 came to be withdrawn.
The assessee trust had filed an appeal before the Hon. ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench with regards the cancellation of registration u/s 12AA of the Act. The Hon. Tribunal had vide order dated 20.06.2014 set aside the issue of registration u/s 12AA to the file of the DI(Exemption), Ahmedabad.
The Ld. DI(Exemption), Ahmedabad vide order dated 16.10.2015 had granted registration u/s 12AA of the Act to the assessee Trust.
In the meantime assessment was completed for various years comprising A.Y.2008-09 to 2012-13 in the case of the assessee trust where the claim of exemption u/s 12AA came to be withdrawn. Appeals were filed against the aforesaid order which were pending at various stages and authorities i.e. Ld.CIT(A) or Hon. Tribunal.
Recently I was in receipt of notice intimating the outstanding demand for the recovery of tax for A.Yr.2010-11. I immediately contacted the then accountant Shri Ashishbhai Bhavsar to ascertain the status of the appeal filed. He on inquiry intimated that the CIT(A) has passed an order ex Parte Order dtd.l 1/02/2014 dismissing the appeal of the aforesaid Trust and the order had been received by him which he forgot to inform either me or any other trustees or any responsible person of the Said Trust.
That on my request he has given copy of the order passed by the CIT(A) to me in the month of July. 2017. On receipt of the same, I as a Managing Trustee of the said Trust approached, our Chartered Accountant and have decided to file an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.ITA No.1759/Ahd/2017
Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust vs. Dy.DIT (E) Asst.Year - 2010-11 -7- That for the earlier years i.e. A.Yrs.2008-09 & 2009-10 the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad has set aside the orders to the Assessing Officer and subsequently, Registration u/s. 12AA of the Act has been granted by them to the aforesaid Trust. For the various years which are subject to litigation appropriate relief has also been granted to the assessee trust on account of the granting of the registration u/s 12AA of the Act.
On account of the negligence of the former accountant who was handling the tax matters as well as multiplicity of the pending proceedings at various levels and also carrying a bonafide impression that the appeals have been filed the Trust was unable to file an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad for A.Yr.2010-11 in time.
That this affidavit is made in support of the application for the condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad against the order passed u/s.!43(3) of the I.T.Act,1961.
The above facts are tine and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief."
4. The assessee also filed the affidavit of the then accountant vide dated 15th July 2017 who was working with the assessee during the relevant time. The extract of the affidavit is reproduced as under:
"AFFIDAVIT I, Ashish Bhavsar, Adult, Indian Inhabitant, residing at C-318, Shabri Apartment, Opp. Nirman School, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad - 380 015 as accountant of the trust Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust of Ahmedabad do hereby solemnly state and declare on oath as under:-
That 1 was working as accountant and looking after the taxation work of the trust Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust of Ahmedabad which is assessed to tax am assessed to tax under PAN- AABTN0243R with the DDIT (Exemption), Officer, Ahmedabad. "ITA No.1759/Ahd/2017
Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust vs. Dy.DIT (E) Asst.Year - 2010-11 -8- That in the case of aforesaid Trust assessment for A.Yr.2010-11 had been completed vide order dtd.25/02/2013 passed u/s.!43(3) of the I.T.Act,1961 by making an addition of Rs.1,40,00,000/- being an amount of Corpus Donation holding that the Trust is not eligible for deduction u/s.11(1 )(d) of the l.T.Act, 1961 as claimed by it.
That being aggrieved by the aforesaid Order passed u/s.l43(3) the l.T.Act, 1961 the said Trust had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -XXI, Ahmedabad on 18/03/2013.
That the CIT(A) has passed an order ex Parte Order dtd. 11/02/2014 dismissing the appeal of the aforesaid Trust. That the said order was received by me on 14/03/2014 ; and was lying with me. Thereafter, as I had decided to leave the work of said Trust I t forgot to inform the trustees or any responsible person of the Said Trust about the said Appellate order.
That thereafter on being contacted by the Trustees of the said Trust in the month of July, 2017 about the status/pendency of aforesaid appeal before CIT(A)-XXI, Ahmedabad I informed them that the said Appeal has already been heard Ex Parte and the order was lying with me. I was not aware about the further remedy which can be taken against the said Appellate order.
That on the request of Trustees of the aforesaid Trust 1 have given copy of the said order to them in the month of July, 2017 as they required for filing an appeal before Higher Authority.
That in view of the above facts and circumstances, the said Trust was unable to file an appeal before the Higher authority in time.
That this affidavit is made in support of the application for the condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax ITA No.1759/Ahd/2017 Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust vs. Dy.DIT (E) Asst.Year - 2010-11 -9- Appellate Tribunal. Ahmedabad against the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the l.T.Act, 1961.
The above facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Sd/-
(Ashish Bhavsar)"
5. In view of above the Ld. AR for the assessee before us submitted that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to unavoidable situation. Therefore the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
6. On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed to condone such inordinate delay.
7. We have perused the records and heard the rival submissions of both the sides. There was a delay of 1166 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before us. In the condonation petition it was explained that the order of Ld. CIT-A was received by the then accountant who was assisting to the CA engaged by the assessee. However the accountant failed to supply the said order to the assessee. Thus the delay occurred in filing the appeal. The assessee and the accountant filed the affidavit which has been cited in the earlier Para to explain the delay in filing the appeal and accordingly prayed for condonation of delay. Now the controversy arises for our adjudication whether the accountant's failure to ITA No.1759/Ahd/2017 Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust vs. Dy.DIT (E) Asst.Year - 2010-11
- 10 -
supply the order of the ld. CIT-A is reasonable and sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
8. In this regard we note that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT reported in 280 ITR 357 has held that :
"3. The Supreme Court in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798 held as under :
"In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. The Court has to exercise the discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression 'sufficient cause', the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance." (p. 799)
4. The Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Orissa Concrete & Allied Industries Ltd. [2003] 264 ITR 186 held as under :
". . .what is really indicated in the various decisions cited and in section 5 of the Limitation Act itself, is that a litigant would be required to explain why the appeal and/or application could not be filed within the period prescribed by limitation and explain the delay for such period for the purpose of linking up the circumstances which had caused the delay during the period of limitation and thereafter." (p. 192)
5. Recently, the Allahabad High Court in Ganga Sahai Ram Swarup v. ITAT [2004] 271 ITR 512 has taken the view that liberal view ought to have been taken by the authority as the delay was only of a very short period and the appellant was not going to gain anything from it.ITA No.1759/Ahd/2017
Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust vs. Dy.DIT (E) Asst.Year - 2010-11
- 11 -
6. Applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court as well as various High Courts, we find, it is stated in the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay that the order copy was misplaced and thereafter it was found and sent to counsel for preparing the appeal and then, the appeal was prepared and filed before the Tribunal and in that process, the delay of 38 days occurred. As held by the Apex Court, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach and the Courts should exercise their discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression "sufficient cause" the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance and the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Appellate Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the reasons given by the assessee for the delay."
9. From the above it is clear that the expression "sufficient cause"
should be interpreted to advance substantial justice. Therefore, advancement of substantial justice is the prime factor while considering the reasons for condoning the delay.
10. We also note that the case on merit is in favour of the assessee. But there is a technical defect in the appeal since the appeal was not filed within the period of limitation. There was the affidavit filed by the assessee filed explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before us. However, the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit to deny the allegation made by the assessee.
11. It is also important to note that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) laid ITA No.1759/Ahd/2017 Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust vs. Dy.DIT (E) Asst.Year - 2010-11
- 12 -
down certain principles for considering the condonation petition for filing the appeal which are reproduced hereunder:
(1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
(3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, commonsense and pragmatic manner.
(4) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
(5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk.
(6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
12. From the above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we note that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred rather than deciding the matter on the basis of technical defect.
13. We also note that there is no allegation from the Revenue that the appeal was not filed within the deliberately. Therefore, we are inclined to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue.
ITA No.1759/Ahd/2017Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust vs. Dy.DIT (E) Asst.Year - 2010-11
- 13 -
We also find that if we reject the application of the assessee for condoning the delay then it would amount to legalise injustice on technical ground whereas the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice.
14. If the delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalising an illegal order which would result in unjust enrichment on the part of the State by retaining the tax relatable thereto. Under the scheme of Constitution, the Government cannot retain even a single pie of the individual citizen as tax, when it is not authorised by an authority of law. Therefore, if we refuse to condone the delay, that would amount to legalise an illegal and unconstitutional order passed by the lower authority. Therefore, in our opinion, by preferring the substantial justice, the delay of 2819 days has to be condoned.
15. The next controversy arises whether the delay of 1166 days was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when there was reasonable cause which prevented that assessee in filing the appeal. As such we need to consider the cause for the delay and not the length of the delay. Accordingly in our considered view when there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. We find support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors reported in 153 ITR 596 wherein it was held as under :
ITA No.1759/Ahd/2017Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust vs. Dy.DIT (E) Asst.Year - 2010-11
- 14 -
"Since in this case the assessee had been prosecuting other remedies, the time taken by those proceedings should naturally be taken while determining the question whether the assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal in time. Therefore, the revenue was not right in submitting that the appeal filed under section 17 was an appeal against the original order of assessment under the Act, which was passed about 20 years ago, as it was evident that the appeal was against an order of rejection of relief by the assessing authority. Thus, though the Tribunal's view that there was no question of limitation in such cases, was not correct yet the AAC was right in condoning the delay and entertaining the appeal."
17. From the above we note that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the above case was pleased to condone delay for 20 years approximately by holding that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation.
18. The delay in the instant case is just of 1166 number of days which cannot be considered to be inordinate or excessive in comparison to the delay of 7330 days approximately.
19. In view of the above we are of the opinion that when there is sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation, the delay has to be condoned irrespective of the duration/period of the delay. In this case, the non-filing of an affidavit by the Revenue for opposing the condonation of delay itself is sufficient for condoning the delay of 1166 number of days. Thus, we condone the delay of 1166 days ITA No.1759/Ahd/2017 Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust vs. Dy.DIT (E) Asst.Year - 2010-11
- 15 -
in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication.
Now we proceed to adjudicate the matter on merit:
20. The only issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that learned CIT-A erred in confirming the order of the AO by sustaining the addition of ₹ 1,40,30,000.00 on account of cancellation of registration of trust under section 12AA of the Act.
21. At the outset it was noticed that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte. In the similar facts and circumstances, the ITAT in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 2743/AHD/2015 pertaining to the assessment 2011-12 vide order dated 15th June, 2018 restored the matter to the Ld. CIT (A) for fresh adjudication on merit. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under:
"5. We have also noticed that the impugned order is passed ex-parte. As noticed in the CIT(A)'s order, notice was served through Chartered Accountant but then, as is the contention of the assessee, the Chartered Accountant did not deal with the matter in intelligent manner and had therefore eventually disengaged by the assessee. We have also been assured by the assessee that given another opportunity of presenting his case before the learned CIT(A) he will scrupulously ensure early disposal of the appeal on merits and shall not resort to any dilatory tactics.
6. Learned Departmental Representative also does not oppose the matter being remitted to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. In view of the above discussion and bearing in mind entirety of the case, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.ITA No.1759/Ahd/2017
Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust vs. Dy.DIT (E) Asst.Year - 2010-11
- 16 -
7. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 15th day of June, 2018."
22. Respectfully following the above judgment, we restore the issue to the file of ld. CIT-A for fresh adjudication in accordance to the provisions of law. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 12 /12/2018
Sd/- Sd/-
(MS.MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AHMED)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ahmedabad; Dated 12/12/2018
ट .सी.नायर, व.(न.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. संबं*धत आयकर आयु,त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु,त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-XXI, Ahmedabad
5. /वभागीय (त(न*ध, आयकर अपील य अ*धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाड5 फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, स या/पत (त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील$य अ%धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad