T.a./7/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kundan Jan Vikas Samiti Chandn

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHITax Appeal No. 7 of 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-Versus- .... Appellant Kundan Jan Vikas Samiti,Hazaribagh ..... Respondent ...... CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.CHANDRASHEKHAR .... For the Appellant : Mr.Deepak Roshan, Adv.For the Respondent: Mr.M.K.Choudhary,Adv. .....Dated 23 rd January, 2014 By Court-Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in the I.T.A. No. 10/Ran/2011, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of respondent-assessee and set aside the order passed by the C.I.T. under Section 12A/AA of the Income Tax Act and directed the C.I.T to renew the registration under Section 12A/AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the revenue has preferred this appeal. 2.The respondent-assessee filed an application for registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, which was received by the C.I.T on 14.7.2010. Even though the notice of hearing was given to the respondent-assessee to produce all books of account, bills and vouchers and copy of instrument by which the society was created but the respondent-assessee instead took adjournment and did not comply with the directions of C.I.T. Vide order dated 31.01.2011, the C.I.T rejected the application on the ground that no compliance was made to the notice of the Department and no books of accounts etc was produced for verification. The assessee challenged the said order before the I.T.A.T. The assessee’s appeal being I.T.A. No. 10/Ran/2011 was taken up along with other appeals and vide common order dated 11.7.2011 all the appeals were allowed by the Tribunal. The relevant portion of the order dated 11.7.2011 is quoted herein below: “On careful analysis of the order(s) passed by the ld. CIT(S) and the rival submissions of all the parties, it is found that the assessee-society(s) was/were given registration under Section 12AA and renewal was granted under Section 80G for the earlier years, therefore, it cannot be said that the material filed by the assessee(s) is incorrect. In this background, we are of the considered view that these are the fit cases to renew the registration of the Trusts and the impugned orders passed by the ld. CIT are not in accordance with law. Hence, the same are hereby set aside by directing the CIT(S) to renew the registration under Section 80G and also grant of registration under section 12A/AA of the I.T. Act, 1961 as prayed for by the assessee(s) in different application(s), by allowing appeals of the assessee(s).” 3.Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that without going into the depth of the matter, the I.T.A.T allowed the assessee’s appeal by clubbing all the appeals; I.T.A. No. 9/Ran/2011, I.T.A. No. 164/Ran/2010, I.T.A. No. 127/Ran/2010, I.T.A. No. 126/Ran/2010, I.T.A. No. 123/Ran/2010, I.T.A. No. 117/Ran/2010, I.T.A. No. 125/Ran/2010, along with I.T.A. No. 10/Ran/2011. It is further submitted that I.T.A.T was not justified in passing a common order involving other assessees having different issues. It was further submitted that that I.T.A.T failed to appreciate that there was no evidence regarding donation and bills/vouchers were not produced and I.T.A.T failed to appreciate that no compliance was made to the notice issued by the Department. 4. We have heard Mr.Deepak Roshan, learned counsel for the Revenue as also Mr.M.K.Choudhary, learned counsel representing the respondent-assessee. 5. On perusal of the order passed by I.T.A.T. , it is seen that I.T.A.T. has clubbed many Income Tax Appeals and passed common order. We are of the view that Tribunal ought to have considered the factual aspects of each one of the matters and also the finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax. 4. We have heard Mr.Deepak Roshan, learned counsel for the Revenue as also Mr.M.K.Choudhary, learned counsel representing the respondent-assessee. 5. On perusal of the order passed by I.T.A.T. , it is seen that I.T.A.T. has clubbed many Income Tax Appeals and passed common order. We are of the view that Tribunal ought to have considered the factual aspects of each one of the matters and also the finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax. 6. In the instant case before the Commissioner Income Tax, the assessee has not responded to the notice issued by the C.I.T. and no books of account was produced for verification. The Tribunal ought to have kept in view that the assessee did not appear before the C.I.T. and should have gone into the merits of the matter. We would have interfered on the above ground but after the order passed by I.T.A.T., the respondent-assessee has approached the C.I.T. and also filed the books of account and other documents for verification. It was also submitted that based on those documents produced by the respondent-assessee, the C.I.T. has passed fresh order granting registration vide order dated 4[th] November, 2011 . 7. Since fresh order has been passed by the Commissioner Income Tax, this Tax Appeal is disposed of, as no substantial question of law remains for consideration. ( R.Banumathi, C.J. ) ( S.Chandrashekhar, J.)