ITA Nos. 3388 to 3393/Del/2011
Asstt. Year:2003-04 to 2008-09
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH `B' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT
AND
SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA NO. 3388, 3389, 3390, 3391, 3392, 3393/DEL/2011
Assessment Years : 2003-04 to 2008-09
Delhi Nursing Council, vs Income Tax Officer (E),
AB College of Nursing Building, Trust Ward-III,
Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi-110092
New Delhi-110002
(PAN: AAAD2239H)
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: Mrs. Ruchika Jain
Respondent by : Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr.DR
ORDER
PER BENCH
These appeals have been oreferred by the appellant against the
consolidated order of CIT(A)-XXI, New Delhi dated 27.4.2011 in Appeal
No. 52,53,54,55, 56 & 57/10-11 for AYs 2003-04 to 2008-09 respectively.
The appellant assessee has raised similar grounds in all above captioned
appeals wherein except amount, the allegations and contents of ground no. 1
are same which read as under:-
"1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case,
the orders passed by the Ld. A.O. assessing income
amounting to -------- in the hands of the assessee are
injudicious and bad at law as the surplus generated by
2 ITA Nos. 3388 to 3393/Del/2011
Asstt. Year:2003-04 to 2008-09
the Council in this case is not income liable to tax under
the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The Ld. assessing authority has grossly erred in
passing assessment orders and assessing the surplus in
the hands of the assessee as income under the Income
Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the principal of mutuality."
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these appeals are that the AO
observed that the appellant assessee was granted registration u/s 12A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) w.e.f. AY 2009-10. In para 9 of
the assessment order dated 20.8.2010 for AY 2003-04, the AO observed that
the assessee appellant was not granted registration u/s 12A of the Act as per
record of the department. The AO further held that the assessee appellant
did not respond or comply with the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. Therefore,
the AO invoked the provisions of section 144 and completed the assessment
proceedings in all six assessment years ex parte by considering surplus
amount as per audited accounts and capital expenditure minus depreciation
as income of the appellant assessee.
3. Being aggrieved by the above assessment orders, the assessee
preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by passing impugned
consolidated order for all six years. Now, the empty handed appellant
assessee is before this Tribunal with similar grounds in all six appeals as
reproduced hereinabove.
3 ITA Nos. 3388 to 3393/Del/2011
Asstt. Year:2003-04 to 2008-09
4. We have heard arguments of both the parties and carefully perused the
relevant material placed on record. Ld. AR reiterated submissions of the
appellant before the CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee was not granted
due opportunity of hearing by the AO and the assessment proceedings were
completed ex parte u/s 144 of the Act without considering probable
submissions and defense of the assessee. The AR further contended that the
CIT(A) also dismissed appeals of the assessee by passing a cryptic and short
order without assigning any reason for upholding the assessment orders.
The AR also pointed out that the explanation of the assessee about mutuality
and other relevant contentions and submissions were also not considered by
the CIT(A) and CIT(A) passed impugned order in a slipshod and casual
manner which does not adjudicate entire contention and submission of the
assessee on all issues and grounds of controversy raised before the CIT(A)
by the assessee appellant. Ld. DR responded that if it is found just and
proper, then the revenue has no serious objection if the entire controversy is
restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
5. On careful consideration of above submissions and careful perusal of
relevant material placed on record, inter alia assessment orders and the
impugned order, we clearly observe that the AO completed assessment on
the back of the assessee ex parte without affording due opportunity of
4 ITA Nos. 3388 to 3393/Del/2011
Asstt. Year:2003-04 to 2008-09
hearing for the assessee. From bare reading of impugned order of the first
appellate authority i.e. CIT(A), we also observe that the CIT(A) has passed a
slipshod and cryptic order without giving any cogent and reasonable finding
on the contentions and submissions of the assessee specially on the ground
of mutuality. We also observe that the CIT(A) has also not given any
finding on the submissions and evidence filed before him by the assessee
appellant. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee
should be given due opportunity of hearing and his contentions, submissions
and supporting evidence and documents should be examined and verified at
the end of AO. In view of above, impugned order as well as assessment
orders are set aside and the issue of assessment on all counts is restored to
the file of AO with the direction that the AO shall pass a speaking
assessment order for all six years by affording due opportunity of hearing for
the assessee and without being prejudiced with the earlier observations and
findings in the assessment orders and in the order of CIT(A). Accordingly,
both the issues in all six appeals are deemed to be allowed for statistical
purposes.
6. In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated
above.
5 ITA Nos. 3388 to 3393/Del/2011
Asstt. Year:2003-04 to 2008-09
Order pronounced in the open court on 8.8.2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
(G.D. AGRAWAL) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG)
VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
DT. 8th AUGUST 2014
`GS'
Copy forwarded to:-
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. C.I.T.(A)
4. C.I.T. 5. DR
By Order
Asstt.Registrar
|