JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ application has been filed to quash the order dated October 31, 2000, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), as contained in annexure 4, as well as the order dated December 12, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, as contained in annexure 5, dismissing the appeal filed against the said order.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax by the aforesaid order has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for registration as charitable trust for the purpose of tax benefits. The said order has been upheld in appeal.
4. In view of the nature of submission as well as the nature of the order which we propose to pass, it is not necessary to state the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that an application under Section 12A of the Act was filed by the petitioner on April 20, 2001, for registration of the trust. The said application had to be determined within six months from the end of the month in view of the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 12AA. It appears that the Commissioner did not take any action till October 15, 2001, and a notice dated October 16, 2001, was served upon the petitioner on October 17, 2001, asking it to produce the relevant documents as mentioned in the notice and also to furnish required information on October 23, 2001.
5. According to the petitioner, the trust is running a school and as the school and its offices were closed on account of puja holidays from October 17, 2001, to October 28, 2001, on the date fixed in the case, i.e., October 23, 2001, a time petition was filed on its behalf for grant of one month adjournment. However, as there was time constraint in view of the statutory provisions, the date was fixed on October 29, 2001. On that day, the petitioner produced the documents
which could be made available up to that date. On that day, a complaint peti
tion containing allegations against the petitioner filed by one Tibrewal was
also handed over to the petitioner but without annexures and the matter was
adjourned to October 30, 2001. The petitioner filed a reply to the allegations
made in the complaint petition and requested for affording opportunity to
rebut the allegations made in the complaint petition but the same was not
allowed. The other documents made available on that day were also produced
and thereafter the impugned order was passed on October 31, 2001, rejecting
the application under Section 12AA of the Act which order has been upheld
by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to non-affording of sufficient time to produce the relevant documents, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity of hearing by the authority concerned.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Department, on the other hand, submitted that sufficient time was given to the petitioner and as such the order cannot be assailed on the ground of denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing.
8. It is an admitted fact that an application was filed in April, 2001, and for the first time the Commissioner of Income-tax took action at the fag end as provided under Section 12AA(2) of the Act. The institution of the petitioner was closed up to October 28, 2001, on account of puja holidays. In that view of the matter, the assertion of the petitioner that it could not get enough time to produce the documents cannot be said to be without any basis. The copy of the allegation petition filed by one Tibrewal which has ,been relied upon by the authority had been served upon the petitioner on October 23, 2001, and the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to give time to rebut the same in accordance with law has also not been given by the Commissioner of Income-tax. If the authority would have taken steps earlier, the question of denial of reasonable opportunity would not have arisen in the case. The fact that the matter was taken up on October 16, 2001, itself appears to be the main reason for disposal of the matter hurriedly within the prescribed period.
9. In our view, the petitioner was deprived of reasonable opportunity to produce all the relevant documents due to time constraint for the reasons mentioned above. Accordingly, we are of the view that there is denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in this case. Accordingly, both the orders, as contained in annexures 2/A and 3 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhagalpur, to take fresh decision in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As both the parties have appeared, we direct that the petitioner should appear before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhagalpur, on or before March 25, 2003, with all relevant documents. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhagalpur, on that day or on any other date fixed by him will dispose of the matter in accordance with law.
10. It is made clear that so far as we are concerned, we have not expressed any opinion about the merits of the claim which is for the authorities to consider in accordance with law.
11. In the result, this writ application is allowed.