Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Cit Iv Pune, Solapur vs Department Of Income Tax on 22 December, 2009
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Pune Bench B , Pune
Before Shri Shailendra Kumar (JM) and Shri D. Karunakara Rao (AM)
ITA No. 167/PN/2010
The Balaji Foundation & Research Centre, .... Appellant
Balaji Bhavan, 165-A,
Railway Lines, Solapur 413001
PAN : Not available
v.
The Commissioner of Income Tax IV, .... Respondent
Praptikar Sadan, Erandawane,
Off. Karve Road, Pune
Appellant by : Shri Vipin Gujarathi
Department by : Ms. Manju Ajwani
ORDER
Per D. Karunakara Rao AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT IV, Pune, dated 22nd December 2009 rejecting the application for Registration u/s. 12A of the Act.
2. The Grounds and the additional Grounds read as under :
"Original Grounds
1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the honourable Commissioner of Income Tax IV, Pune has erred in and is not justified in rejecting the application for grant of registration under section 12A without any basis and without giving proper opportunity of hearing.
2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the order of the honourable CIT-IV rejecting the application for renewal of registration u/s 12AA is bad in law as the same is passed beyond the period of 6 months from the end of the month in which application has been made for renewal. The appellant pray that the order of the honourable CIT -IV Pune may please be quashed."
"Additional Grounds"
"1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the honourable Commissioner of Income Tax IV, Pune has erred in and is not justified in rejecting the application for grant of registration under section 80G(5)(vi) of the I.T. Act without any basis and without giving proper opportunity of hearing.
The Ground of Appeal No 2 may please be read as follows
2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the order of the honourable CIT-IV rejecting the application for renewal of registration u/s 80G(5) is bad in law as the same is passed beyond the period of 6 months from the date of 2 ITA No 167/PN/2010 The Balaji Foundation & Research Centre,, Page of 3 the application which has been made for renewal. The appellant pray that the order of the honourable CIT-IV Pune may please be quashed.
3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the honourable Commissioner of Income Tax IV, Pune has erred in rejecting the application of the appellant for grant of registration under section 80G(5)(vi) of the I.T. Act without appreciating the fact that the appellant has complied with all conditions laid down in clause (i) to (v) of sub-section 5 of section 80G of the I.T. Act. The appellant prays that the approval under section 80G may please be granted."
2. At the very outset, the Ld Counsel for the assessee mentioned that there is a mistake in the original Grounds and therefore, filed the rectified Grounds. Referring to the original Grounds, the Counsel also mentioned that the CIT failed to pass an order within the period of six months. Referring to the additional Ground, the Counsel mentioned that the assessee complied with all the conditions laid down in the Section 80G(5)(i) to (v) and he highlighted the legal nature of additional Ground and requested for admitting the same. Further, Ld Counsel also highlighted the fact that the CIT did not give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ld Counsel also highlighted the fact that the CIT failed to pass the impugned order dt. 22.12.2009 within the period of six months from the date of filing of the application. Further, as per the Counsel, the CIT failed to mention the reasons for not passing the impugned order in the reasonable period. Finally, Ld Counsel prayed that all these Grounds may be referred to the files of CIT for fresh adjudication as CIT failed to offer reasonable opportunity of being hear to the assessee satisfactorily. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue relied on the order of the CIT.
3. We have heard both the parties. So far as the Ground relating to the reasonable opportunity is concerned, we find this issue relates to principles of natural justice and we find no reason to reject the assessee's grievance in this regard. Regarding CIT's failure to pass the order within the period of six months as applicable to the applications referred to u/s. 12AA (2) of the Act, we are informed that there exists large number of decisions of this Tribunal relating to u/s. 80G too. In this regard, learned counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of Special Bench (Delhi) in the case of Bhagwad Swarup Shri Shri Devraha Baba Memorial Shri Hari Parmarth Dham Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (2007) 17 SOT 281 (Delhi) (SB) for the proposition that where CIT does not pass order granting or refusing registration of trust within six months from the end of the month in which application for registration u/s 12A was filed, registration would be deemed to have been granted to trust or institution automatically on the expiry of the period specified in section 12AA(2). In any case, CIT did not have any occasion to adjudicate this legal issue and give his opinion on the matter. Regarding additional 3 ITA No 167/PN/2010 The Balaji Foundation & Research Centre,, Page of 3 Ground, we find there is need for decision of the CIT whether all the conditions laid down in Clause (i) to (v) of Section 80G (5) are complied with or not.
4. Considering the above factual position, we are of the opinion that all these issues must be sent to the CIT, who shall adjudicate all the Grounds afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in compliance of the principles of natural justice. Ld Counsel is also directed to file the copies of the co- ordinate bench decisions on the issue and also the above referred Special Bench decision to support his case. Accordingly, the Grounds are set aside.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 13th day of August 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Shailendra Kumar Yadav (D. Karunakara Rao )
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Pune, dated the 13th August, 2010
US
Copy of the order is forwarded to :
1. The Assessee
2. The Department
3. The CIT- IV, Pune
4. The D.R. "B" Bench, Pune
5. Guard File
By order
Assistant Registrar
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Pune