9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the assessee will eventually be able to comply with the conditions, if any, attached to the exemptions, as long as the exemption is available in principle and as long as the assessee can reasonably claim to be able to satisfy the conditions attached to such exemption, one has to proceed on the basis that the condition laid down u/s 80G(5)(i) is satisfied. Before the ITAT it seems, the appellant was able to point out the relevant documents from which charitable nature of the society could be deciphered. The ITAT therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case observed that the CIT (E) has not examined the entire documents placed before him, and these are matters which require factual verification of the CIT (E) who has the requisite machinery to undertake such an exercise. The appellate Court certainly have the power of remand, and the ITAT has rightly remanded the matter back to the CIT (E) for fresh decision, and sufficient reasons have been stated by the ITAT in support of its decision to remand the case which cannot be found wanting. ITAT rightly remanded the matter back to the CIT (E) for fresh consideration and decision on the basis of the evidence available on re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obtained a certificate under Section 12-A Of the Act, 1961 from the office of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow, and had also applied for the certificate under Section 80G of the Act, 1961 on 20/06/2017 on prescribed Form No.10G with all the requisite information. The said application was dismissed, against which the appellant preferred an appeal on 23/01/2018 before the ITAT, Lucknow, decided by order dated 28/09/2018, which has been impugned in the instant appeal. 5. The ITAT in its order dated 28/09/2018 has remitted the matter back before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) to be decided afresh after verifying the facts of the case in accordance with the documents submitted by the assessee and specifically to determine the genuineness of those documents and, to come out with a speaking order. 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) in his order dated 13/12/2017, while rejecting the application of the assessee, took into account the fact that the applicant has deliberately not submitted any details regarding the identity of the donors, and concluded that this is a malafide attempt on part of the applicant to introduce the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation cannot be revisited. Before the ITAT from documents, the assessee tried to impress that the expenses shown in the books of accounts as donations contained the full details of the donors, and all the evidences as desired by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) were available on record. 9. From the perusal of the impugned order it is evident that it weighed in the mind of the ITAT that despite numerous documents having been filed as evidence before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), the same have not been duly taken note of, and the application of the assessee for registration has been rejected without examining the evidence filed by him, and therefore, remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) to look into each and every aspect of the case and the take a fresh decision after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 10. The main contention raised by the assessee in this appeal is, that in the facts and circumstances of the case the matter could not have been remanded back as the entire material was available before the ITAT to come to subjective satisfaction as to whether in the given circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax (Exemptions) could not form a subjective satisfaction with regard to the above , and also charitable objects of the applicant. Before the ITAT, the applicant placed all the relevant material, and the ITAT has rightly remanded the matter to the Commissioner for taking into account all the evidence produced by the assessee and to form a subjective satisfaction in this regard. 13. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contentions produced the judgement in the case of J.Balaji Singh vs Diwakar Cole in Civil Appeal No. 5540 of 2017 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the question as to whether the High Court was right in remanding the case to the Trial Court for fresh trial on merits. The Supreme Court upheld the contention of the first appellate Court in remanding the matter to the Trial Court has to be decided in light of the additional evidence adduced by the parties, and further observed that it was not necessary for the first appellate Court to enter into the merits of the case and form an opinion when the matter was being remanded. The Apex Court in paragraph number 27 has clearly held as under :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the entire documents placed before him, and these are matters which require factual verification of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) who has the requisite machinery to undertake such an exercise. The appellate Court certainly have the power of remand, and the ITAT has rightly remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) for fresh decision, and sufficient reasons have been stated by the ITAT in support of its decision to remand the case which cannot be found wanting. 17. The counsel for the respondent on the other hand has relied on a decision passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of New Cawnpore Flour Mills Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 2005 (275) ITR 45 wherein the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) as the same was short and cryptic and did not consider the different aspect of the matter, and while confirming the said order of the Tribunal the High Court observed as under :- We do not find any infirmity in the approach adopted by the tribunal in the present case. Even otherwise, in the case of CIT v Naresh Chandra Bhargava (1987) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
