2015 (12) TMI 385 - AT - Income Tax

Charitable activity - addition made by the Assessing Officer treating the activity of providing Mid Day Meal being falling with the proviso to Section 2(15) - Breach of natural justice - non providing opportunity to present case to assessee - Held that - It is evident from the affidavit and its annexure that the assessee has duly filed application for adjournment before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and therefore, the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that non attended on 13.06.2012 is not correct. The notices on the subsequent dates are also found not to be served properly on the assessee as asserted by the secretary of the assessee society in his affidavit. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has not been provided any opportunity to represent its case, and therefore, following the settled rule of natural justice of audi alteram partem according to which nobody should be condemned unheard, we remit the matter back to the file of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) with a direction to provide opportunity of being heard and decide the appeal de novo. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Issues:
1. Opportunity of being heard not provided by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
2. Assessment of income tax exemptions for providing mid day meals.
3. Addition of income and expenses by the Assessing Officer.
4. Non-compliance with notices and ex-parte decision by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
5. Violation of natural justice and the principle of audi alteram partem.

Issue 1: Opportunity of being heard not provided by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)
The appeal raised concerns regarding the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) without providing an opportunity for the appellant to present their case, leading to an ex-parte decision. The appellant contended that they had filed an application for adjournment, which was not considered. The tribunal acknowledged the submission of the appellant and found that the notices were not properly served on the appellant, as confirmed by an affidavit. Following the principle of natural justice, the tribunal remitted the matter back to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to provide a fair opportunity for the appellant to be heard.

Issue 2: Assessment of income tax exemptions for providing mid day meals
The Assessing Officer had disallowed income tax exemptions to the appellant, considering the activity of providing mid day meals as a business activity due to turnover exceeding a specified amount. The tribunal noted the additions made by the Assessing Officer and the subsequent confirmation by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, the tribunal's decision to remit the case back for a fresh hearing implies a review of the assessment of income tax exemptions for providing mid day meals.

Issue 3: Addition of income and expenses by the Assessing Officer
The Assessing Officer had made several additions to the appellant's income, including surplus amounts, unexplained donations, and disallowed expenses. These additions were confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The tribunal's decision to remit the case back for a de novo hearing suggests a reevaluation of these additions and their compliance with the law.

Issue 4: Non-compliance with notices and ex-parte decision by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)
The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) proceeded ex-parte due to the appellant's non-compliance with multiple hearing notices. The tribunal found discrepancies in the service of notices and the appellant's claim of filing an adjournment application. As a result, the tribunal directed a reevaluation of the case, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case.

Issue 5: Violation of natural justice and the principle of audi alteram partem
The tribunal's decision to remit the case back for a fresh hearing was based on the violation of natural justice principles, particularly the right to be heard (audi alteram partem). The appellant's claim of not being provided with a proper opportunity to represent their case led to the tribunal's decision to ensure a fair and unbiased hearing process in compliance with legal principles.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers all the relevant issues comprehensively, highlighting the key legal aspects and the tribunal's decision in each aspect of the case.

← Previous Next →