Haryana State Coop. Supply And Marketing Federation Limited Panchkula v. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Spl. Range I, Chandigarh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITA No. 597 of 2006 Date of decision: 2.2.2011 Haryana State Coop. Supply and Marketing Federation Limited Panchkula -----Appellant Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Spl. Range I, Chandigarh ----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr.Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the revenue. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1.As per office report, file was not available on account of fire in theCourt premises. The file has been reconstructed on the basis of paper bookfurnished by learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) against order dated 14.6.2006passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh bench ‘B’ in ITANo.489/Chandi/2000, claiming following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasjustified in law in not allowing rebate under section 80G of theAct on donation made by the appellant to KurukshetraDevelopment Board amounting to Rs.5 lac on the ground thatthe receipt was not filed either before the Assessing Officer orthe CIT (Appeals) when it was not asked for by either of theauthorities? ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that thefinding of the CIT(Appeals) regarding non filing of receipt wasnot challenged in appeal before the Tribunal when specific ground in not allowing the rebate was taken as per Rule 8 ofthe income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules? iii) Whether the claim of rebate under section 80G of the Actcould be declined especially in view of the fact that the claimhad been allowed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated10.11.1997 passed under section 143(1) of the Act?” 3. Learned counsel for the parties state that identical issue in the case ofthe assessee arose in ITA No.268 of 2006 alongwith ITA No.157 of 2005 and videorder dated September 8, 2010, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for freshdecision on merits in accordance with law after holding that evidence led by theassessee relating to the donation may be looked into. 4.In view of above, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal andremand the matter to it for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law in thelight of aforesaid judgment. The parties may appear before the Tribunal for furtherproceedings on March 28, 2011. 5.The appeal is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge February 2, 2011‘gs’ (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge