TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the assessee and the impugned order was also passed beyond the period of 6 months from the date of filing of application - These facts would clearly prove that enquiries were done by the ITO (Tech.) without any authority of law as genuineness of the activities of the assessee and give opportunity of being heard to the assessee institution, cannot be delegated to the ITO (Tech.) - that the impugned order is passed in most mechanical manner without complying with the provisions of law, thus grant of renewal of approval u/s. 80G(5)(vi)is warranted - decided against revenue. - ITA No. 433/Agra/2010 - - - Dated:- 8-6-2012 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, JJ. Appellant by : S/Sri Swaran Singh S.K. Gupta, C.A. Respondent by : Shri Ateshan Ansari, Jr. D.R. ORDER Per Bhavnesh Saini, J.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT, Aligarh dated 28.09.2010 refusing to grant approval u/s. 80G(5)(vi) of the IT Act on the following grounds : 1. That the ld. CIT has erred in Law as well as on facts and circumstances of case rejecting the application u/s. 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. That the Ld. CIT has erre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee and the documents filed in the paper book and has referred to page 1 of the paper book onwards to show the gist of chronology of events of impugned proceedings. He has submitted that the application u/s. 12AA was filed on 23.03.2010, copies of which are filed at PB-18 to 53. Notice dated 10.05.2010 was issued by the Additional CIT, Aligarh, who was the Assessing Officer of the assessee to conduct enquiries for the purpose of grant of approval u/s. 80G of the IT Act. Copy of notice is filed at page 54 of the paper book. The Addl. CIT, Aligarh submitted his report dated 13.09.2010 recommending the assessee s case for registration u/s. 80G of the Act. Copy of his report is filed at page 55 to 56 of the paper book. Even after that, notice dated 15.09.2010 (PB-57) was issued by the ITO (Technical) without authorization by the CIT, Aligarh requiring certain information from the assessee latest by 23.09.2010, copy of which is filed at page 57 of the paper book. The assessee immediately complied with the notice of ITO (Tech.) by filing the reply, copy of which is filed at page 59 to 89 of the paper book and vide reply dated 20.09.2010 all the queries of ITO(Tech.) were satisfied. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und is for the time being approved by the Commissioner in accordance with the rules made in this behalf . Section 80G(5) provides that before granting approval under the above provision, assessee/institution should exist for charitable purpose and fulfill the conditions prescribed in sub-clause (i) to (v) of Section 80G(5) of the IT Act. None of these conditions have been stated to be violated by the assessee as per the impugned order. 5.1 Rule 11AA of the IT Rules provides requirements for approval of institution or fund u/s. 80G of the IT Act and same reads as under : Requirements for approval of an institution or fund under section 80G. 11AA. (1) The application for approval of any institution or fund under clause (vi) of sub-section (5) of section 80G shall be in Form No. 10G and shall be made in triplicate. (2) The application shall be accompanied by the following documents, namely : (i) Copy of registration granted under section 12A or copy of notification issued under section 10(23) or 10(23C) ; (ii) Notes on activities of institution or fund since its inception or during the last three years, whichever is less ; (iii) Copies of accounts of the institution or fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ineness of the activities of the assessee institution or fund. The Commissioner, on satisfying with the terms and conditions of section 80G(5) (i) to (v) of the Act, may record his satisfaction in writing and grant approval to the assessee/institution. If one or more conditions of the above provisions are not satisfied, the Commissioner may reject the application for approval. However, no order of rejection of application shall be passed without giving the institution or fund an opportunity of being heard. Further, according to sub-rule (6) of Rule 11AA of the IT Rules, the Commissioner shall have to pass an order either granting approval or rejecting application within 6 months from the date on which such application was made. The proviso, however, provides that in computing the period of six months, any time taken by the assessee in not complying with the directions of the Commissioner under sub-rule (3), shall be excluded. 5.3. ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of S. Lakha Singh Bahra Charitable Trust vs. CIT (supra) held CIT has to pass an order either granting the approval or rejecting application within six months from the date on which such application for exemption is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conducted by the ITO (Tech.) at the back of the CIT, Aligarh and even the draft order was put up by ITO (Tech.), which is only approved by the ld. CIT, Aligarh. The ld. DR produced the order sheet of 18.02.2010, in which the CIT, Aligarh directed enquiry to be conducted by the Addl. CIT, which is also referred in the impugned order, but it was not explained as to which of the CIT has signed this order sheet. The ld. counsel for the assessee in the paper book filed the profiles of Shri A.K. Jain, Shri Virendra Singh, CITs, in which it is made clear that Shri A.K. Jain, CIT, Aligarh remained posted at Aligarh from 22.06.06 to 28.01.2010 and Shri Virendra Singh, CIT remained posted as CIT, Aligarh from 22.07.2010 till date. In between Shri Surendrajit Singh, was holding the charge of CIT, Aligarh during the period 10.07.2010 to 18.07.2010 and no such information was maintained by the department whether he was physically present at the office of CIT, Aligarh. In view of the above facts, the ld. DR was directed to produce the jurisdictional order of the CIT, Aligarh. Despite giving sufficient time, no jurisdictional order of CIT, Aligarh dealing with the above matter was produced. The l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asi judicial authority while dealing with such matters. Therefore, such a casual approach in the matter is not appreciated. Even on merits, the assessee has been able to explain each and every issue during the course of arguments to show that there is no sudden jump in the donation and that none of the provisions of section 11 have been violated which are also subject mater of regular assessment. Since the observation in the impugned order are verbatim of the order sheet of ITO (Tech.) as per order sheet dated 08.07.2010, therefore, the finding of ITO (Tech.) have no value under the eyes of law because no enquiry or proceedings have been conducted by CIT, Aligarh. 6. Considering the above discussion, the impugned order dated 27.07.2010 cannot be sustained in law and accordingly, we hold (i). That the CIT, Aligarh has not conducted any enquiry into the matter in order to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the activities of the assessee institution or fund; (ii). That the impugned order is passed by the ld. CIT without giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in most mechanical manner, merely relying upon the order sheet dated 08.07.2010 recorded by ITO (Te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
