Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions v. Late Devyani Kamlesh Ruparel Public Charitable Trust

C/TAXAP/892/2017 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 892 of 2017 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Sd/- andHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJESd/-================================================================1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to Nosee the judgment ?2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?No3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Nojudgment ?4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law Noas to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?================================================================ PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) Versus LATE DEVYANI KAMLESH RUPAREL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST ================================================================ Appearance:MR MANISH R BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE assisted by MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1MR TUSHAR HEMANI for MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH andHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 11/07/2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) C/TAXAP/892/2017 JUDGMENT 1.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned ITAT dated 15.05.2017 passed in IAT No.1982/Ahd/2014, by which the learned Tribunal has allowed the said appeal and has directed to grant registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned CIT, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal with the following question of law:- “1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was correct in granting approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act?” 1.1“Whether the said order of the ITAT was perverse as while coming to the conclusion it has relied on irrelevant material while rejecting the material brought on record by the Ld.CIT in his order.” 2.Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, we frame the following additional question of law:- “2.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT is justified in quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned CIT refusing registration under Section 80G of the Act without assigning any reasons and whether such a non-speaking order is sustainable 3.Heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. Perused the impugned order passed by the learned ITAT. 4.From the order, it appears and is not disputed that the impugned order passed by the learned ITAT is a non-reasoned and non-speaking order. Nothing is discussed how the learned CIT was wrong in denying registration under Section 80G of the Act. Therefore, there is a broad consensus between the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties to quash and set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the learned ITAT for fresh decision in accordance with law and on merits and thereafter to pass a speaking and reasoned order by the learned ITAT. Therefore, Shri Hemani, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-assessee has requested to make suitable observation that all the contentions /defences which may be available to the assessee are kept open, to be considered by the learned Tribunal in accordance with and on merits and that this Court has not expressed anything on merits in favour of either party. 5.In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove and broad consensus between the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties C/TAXAP/892/2017 JUDGMENT recorded hereinabove, present appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned ITAT, which is a non-reasoned and non-speaking order, cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and it is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned ITAT for fresh decision in accordance with law and on merits and thereafter, the learned Tribunal to pass a speaking, reasoned order. 6.It is made clear that the impugned order is set aside on the aforesaid ground alone and this Court has not expressed anything on merits in favour of either party and it is ultimately for the learned Tribunal to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and on merits. 7.Present appeal is allowed accordingly. The question of law-No.2 is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Sd/-(M.R. SHAH, J) SHITOLE Sd/-(A.Y. KOGJE, J)