Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9540 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
06-01-2020
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Assessment Year
2013-2014
Appeal Filed On
16-10-2018
Judgement Text
VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,B JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY PACHERI BARI, JHUNJHUNU. CUKE VS. THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAAJS 3900 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. R. SHARMA (C.A.) & JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI B.K. GUPTA (CIT) A LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 25/11/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/01/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(E), JAIPUR DATED 14.09.2016 WITHDRAWING THE APP ROVAL GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A UNIVERSITY ESTABLISHED UNDER A STATUTE BY THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN VIDE ACT NO. 6 OF 2008 NAMELY, S INGHANIA UNIVERSITY PACHERI BARI (JHUNJHUNU) ACT, 2008. THE ASSESSEE UN IVERSITY WAS GRANTED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.06/2009 DATED 29.07.2009 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 2 2009-10 ONWARDS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A REFERENC E TO THE LD. CIT(E) FOR WITHDRAWAL OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(V I) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREAFTER, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. F.NO./10/CIT(E)/JPR/WITHDWL-10(23C)(VI)/2015-16/648 DATED 3.05.2016 WAS ISSUED ASKING THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY TO SHOW C AUSE AS TO WHY THE EXEMPTION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT SHOULD NOT BE WITHDRAWN. THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY SU BMITTED ITS REPLY DATED 06.06.2016 TO THE AFORESAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE . HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(E) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.09.2016 WITHDRA WAN THE EXEMPTION GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY UNDER SE CTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FROM THE A.Y 2013-14 AND ONWARDS WHICH IS UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE US. 3. IN ITS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY HAS RAISE D THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS) ERRED IN WITHDRAWING, FROM ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ONWARDS, EXEMPTION GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (`T HE ACT'). 2. THAT THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS) ERRED GROSSLY ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN TREATING THE APPELLANT, A SELF-REGULATED AUTONOMOUS STATUTORY BODY ESTABLISHED BY AN ACT OF STATE LEGISLATURE, AS A SOCIETY AND PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BASED ON THAT. 3. THAT THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN OVERLOOKING THAT THE APPELLANT IS A SEPARATE AND DI STINCT CLASS FROM 'OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR THE EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PROFIT '. ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 3 4. THAT THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN OVERLOOKING THAT BEING SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CLASSE S, 'OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS' ARE ESTABLISHED AS TRUST OR SOCIETY AND MAY HAVE OBJECTIVES OTHER THAN EDUCATION, HOWEVER, ASSESSEE LIKE ALL OTHER UNIVERSITIES IN THE COUNTRY IS ESTAB LISHED BY AN ACT OF STATE LEGISLATURE AND CANNOT CARRY OUT ANY ACTIVITY OTHER THAN EDUCATION. 5. THAT THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN WITHDRAWING EXEMPTION ALLEGING THAT ACTIVITIES OF T HE APPELLANT WERE NOT GENUINE: 5.1 THAT THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C) (VI) WAS PRO VED TO THE APPELLANT FOR RUNNING ONLY SPECIFIC COURSES AND THA T FRESH APPROVAL WAS REQUIRED TO BE SOUGHT ON ADDITION OF E VERY NEW COURSE . 5.2 THAT THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW AND ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN OVERLOOKING THAT THE APPELLANT IS GOVERNED BY THE UGC ACT, WHICH HAS OVERRIDING EFFEC T OVER STATE ACT, AND AS SUCH ENTITLES THE APPELLANT TO IMPART E DUCATION IN ALL COURSES AS PER SECTION 22 OF THE UGC ACT AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF MAHARSHI MAHE SH YOGI VEDIC VISHWIDYALAYA V. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. REPORTE D IN (2013) 15 SCC 677. 5.3 THAT THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW AND ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN OVERLOOKING THAT THE APPELLANT IS EMPOWERED TO AWARD DEGREES IN ALL COURSES OF EDUCAT ION WHICH ARE SUI-GENERIS VALID AND IS NOT REQUIRED TO OBTAIN PRIOR APPROVAL OF OTHER AUTHORITIES AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX CO URT AND VARIOUS HIGH COURTS. 6. THAT THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW ALLEGING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUC ATIONAL ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 4 PURPOSES ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT WAS RUNNI NG A HOSPITAL: 6.1 THAT THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE EXPENSE DEBITED IN THE RELEVANT AS SESSMENT YEAR WAS TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF A HOSPITAL WHEREAS THE EXPENSE WAS DEBITED TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING COMPRISI NG OF CLASSROOMS, LABS AND LIBRARY WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE TEHSILDAR REPORT, RELIED UPON BY THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS), ITSELF . 6.2 THAT THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS) ERRED ON FACTS AND I N LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT PRACTICAL TRAINING AND HOSPITAL T EACHING AMOUNTS TO IMPARTING EDUCATION. 6.3 THAT THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN OVERLOOKING THAT IT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE APPELLAN T TO PROVIDE FOR HEALTH CARE FACILITIES TO ITS STAFF AND STUDENTS. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SOUGHT PERMISSION TO R AISE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL:- THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY CIT(E), JAIPUR I S BAD IN LAW AS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 03/11-05-2016, U/S 10(23 C)(VI) IS ISSUED AND SIGNED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (HQRS.) AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND SIGNED BY CIT(E). 5. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E ADDITIONAL GROUND IS LEGAL IN NATURE AND ALL RELEVANT FACTS AR E AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS EMERGING OUT OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ITO (HQR.) U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. SINCE, NO NEW FACTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE EVA LUATED NOR ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY IS NEEDED AND THE ISSUE RAISED IN T HE ADDITIONAL GROUND CAN BE ADJUDICATED ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, THERE FORE, THE ADDITIONAL ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 5 GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUD ICATION. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL P OWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT 229 ITR 383. THUS, THE LD. AR HAS CONTENDED THA T THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT U/S 254, THE TRIBUNAL M AY, AFTER GIVING BOTH THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL AN OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD, PASS SUCH ORDERS THEREON AS IT THINKS FIT. THE POWER OF THE T RIBUNAL IN DEALING WITH APPEAL IS THUS EXPRESSED IN THE WIDEST POSSIBLE TER MS. THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PREVENTED FROM RA ISING THAT QUESTION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME, SO LONG AS THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE ON RECORD IN RESPECT OF THAT ITEM. BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS DEPARTMENT HAS A RIGHT TO FILE AN APPEAL/CROSS OBJE CTION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE PREVENTED FROM CONSIDERING THE QUESTIONS OF LAW ARI SING IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED EARLIER. THE LD. AR HAS THUS PLEADED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND MAY BE ADMITTED FOR ADJU DICATION. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS OBJECTED TO THE AD MISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT RAISE THIS GROUND BEFORE THE LD. CIT(E) DESPITE APPROPRIATE OP PORTUNITY BEING GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE AD DITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE AND GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT NO NEW FACTS A RE REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED NOR ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY IS NEEDED FOR ADJU DICATION OF THE ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 6 ISSUE RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND. FURTHER, THI S IS FIRST APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND NOT A CASE OF RAISING A FRES H PLEA FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHOUT RAISING THE SAME B EFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHEN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE IS PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY NEW FACTS TO BE EXAMINED OR FURTHER ENQUIRY TO BE CONDUCTED FOR ADJUDICATION OF THIS IS SUE, THEN IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF NA TIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT(SUPRA), WE ADMIT THE ADDITIO NAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJUDICATION. 8. FIRSTLY, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 03.05.2016 BEING SIGNED AND ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (HQRS.) AND NOT BY THE CIT(E), IS NOT SIGNE D AND ISSUED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND HENCE, THE CONSEQUENTIAL I MPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.09.2016 PASSED BY THE CIT(E) IS WITHOUT JU RISDICTION, VOID AB-INITIO AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED ON THIS GROUND. 9. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT UNDER LAW, TH E SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 03.05.2016 BEING A STATUTORY LEGAL DOC UMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED AND SIGNED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY I.E . PERSONA DESIGNATA AS LAID DOWN BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY V. CIT(E) (ITA NO.1118/JP/2016 DATED 20.12.2017). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY IS SQUARELY COV ERED BY THE CASE OF MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY (SUPRA) AS PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 7 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 03.05.2016 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE PARAGRAPHS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE MODERN SCHOOL SOC IETY CASE (SUPRA). OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 6 OF TH E IMPUGNED CAUSE NOTICE DATED 03.05.2016 WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: 2. IN THIS REGARD, I AM DIRECTED TO STATE THAT YOU R INSTITUTION/SOCIETY HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF FOLLOWING ISSU ES:- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 6. YOUR CASE IS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR ON 25.07.2016 AT 12 .30 P.M. IN THE INCOME TAX OFFICE (EXEMPTIONS) ROOM NO. 303, 3 RD FLOOR, KAILASH HEIGHTS, LAL KOTHI, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR. YOU MAY ATTEND EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH AN AUTHORIZED REPRESEN TATIVE IN THIS BEHALF (HOLDING VALID POWER OF ATTORNEY). ANY FAILU RE TO COMPLY MAY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO THING FURTHER TO SAY FROM HIS SIDE IN THIS REGARD, AND THE CASE M AY THEREFORE, BE ACCORDINGLY DECIDED. 10. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE OPERATIVE PART O F THE TRIBUNALS DECISION WHICH READS AS UNDER: 6. . THUS, IT IS SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITY OTHER THAN THE PRESCRIBED A UTHORITY IS NOT VALID AND CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (E) IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE CONFERS THE JUR ISDICTION TO PROCEED AND TO PASS THE ORDER. IN CASE THE NOTICE I TSELF IS NOT VALID THEN THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE PRESCRIB ED AUTHORITY BASED ON THE INVALID NOTICE BECOME INVALID AND CONS EQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITY IS INVALID AND VOID A N INITIO FOR WANT ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 8 OF JURISDICTION. FURTHER, INVALID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE VITIATES THE PROCEEDINGS AND CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED B Y THE LD. CIT(E) IS INVALID AND LIABLE TO QUASH ON THIS GROUN D. 11. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS SINCE BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COU RT IN D.B.I.T.A. NO. 172/2018 AND WHICH HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SLP NO. 4190/2019. IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE PRESENT CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE AFORESAID MODERN EDUCAT ION SCHOOL SOCIETY CASE IN WHICH IN AN IDENTICAL MANNER SHOW CAUSE NOT ICE UNDER 13TH PROVISO OF SECTION 10(23C)(VI) WAS ISSUED BY INCOME TAX OFFICER (HQRS.) INSTEAD OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND THE CONSEQU ENTIAL ORDER WAS HELD TO BE VOID AB INITIO FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. THUS, AS PER THE FINDING OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY CASE , THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 03.05.2016 IS INVALID FOR WANT OF JURI SDICTION AND CONSEQUENT JURISDICTION OBTAINED BY THE CIT(E) IS I NVALID AND THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.09.2016 IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED ON THIS GROUND. 12. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT REFERENCE TO EXTR ANEOUS MATERIAL SUCH AS INTERNAL NOTING ETC. BY THE LD. CIT/DR IS I RRELEVANT AS ACCORDING TO THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY JUDGM ENT (SUPRA), WHAT IS RELEVANT IS THE LANGUAGE AND TENOR OF THE SHOW CAUS E NOTICE AND IT IS THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ITSELF THAT SHOULD BRING OUT THE THOUGHT PROCESS AND APPLICATION OF MIND OF THE CIT(E). THUS, REFERE NCE TO EXTRANEOUS MATERIAL IS NOT RELEVANT. FURTHER, IN CASES WHERE A NY MATTER IS REDUCED ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 9 IN WRITING, THEN AS PER THE EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 ANY EXTRANEOUS MATTER SUCH AS INTERNAL NOTING ETC. REFERRED BY THE DR IS NEITHER RELEVANT NOR ADMISSIBLE. 13. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 03.05.2016 IS NOT VALID, THE JURISDICT ION ASSUMED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IS INVALID AND THEREFORE, THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITY IS INVALID AND VOID ABINITI O FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT IN A CATENA OF JUDGMENTS THAT WANT OF JURISDICTION GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND CAN BE BROUGHT OUT AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDI NG, EVEN AT THE STAGE OF EXECUTION AND ANY ORDER PASSED WITHOUT PRO PER JURISDICTION IS NULLITY, NON-EST AND DEAD BORN I.E. AS IF IT NEVER CAME INTO EXISTE NCE. REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD MAY BE MADE TO THE CASE OF DR. JAGMITTAR SAIN BHAGAT V. DIR. HEALTH SERVICES, HARYANA & ORS. REPO RTED IN (2013) 10 SCC 136 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD AS U NDER: 7. INDISPUTABLY, IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT CONFERMENT OF JURISDICTION IS A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION AND IT CA N NEITHER BE CONFERRED WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES NOR BY A SUPERIOR COURT, AND IF THE COURT PASSES A DECREE HAVING NO JURISDIC TION OVER THE MATTER, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO NULLITY AS THE MATTER GO ES TO THE ROOTS OF THE CAUSE. SUCH AN ISSUE CAN BE RAISED AT ANY ST AGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. THE FINDING OF A COURT OR TRIBUNAL BEC OMES IRRELEVANT AND UNENFORCEABLE/IN EXECUTABLE ONCE THE FORUM IS FOUND TO HAVE NO JURISDICTION. ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 10 14. IN HIS SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. CIT/DR HAS SUBMITT ED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 10(2 3C)(VI) DATED 03.05.2016 WAS SIGNED BY THE ITO(HQRS.) FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE LD. CIT(E) BY TAKING PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE LD. CIT(E) VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 03.05.2016. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ITO(HQ.)/AC/DC(HQ.) DOES NOT HAVE ANY INDEPENDENT P OWER TO ISSUE SUCH NOTICES. THEY ACT ON BEHALF OF LD. CIT(E) WHIL E ISSUING THESE NOTICES AND PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICES APPROVAL/P ERMISSION WAS TAKEN ON ORDER SHEET/NOTE SHEET FROM THE LD. CIT(E), JAIP UR. 15. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD CIT/DR THAT ON PERUSAL OF RECORDS, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE DRAFT OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS NOT ONLY PERUSED BY THE LD. CIT(E), BUT CORRECTIONS WERE ALS O MADE BY HIM AND AFTER MAKING CORRECTIONS/MODIFICATIONS, THE SAME WA S APPROVED BY THE LD CIT(E) WHICH BRINGS OUT THE THOUGHT PROCESS AND APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE LD CIT(E) IN ISSUANCE OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTI CE. THE LANGUAGE OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ALSO STRENGTHENS THE FACT THA T THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED AS PER DIRECTION AND THE SATISFACTION OF THE LD. CIT(E). THEREFORE, THE NOTICE ISSUED AND CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(E) WERE VALID AND WITHIN JURISDICTION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT LD. CIT(E), JAIPUR PERSONALLY CONDUCTED THE HEARING AS VISIBLE FROM NOTINGS ON ORDER SHEET ON 14.06.2016 IN HIS HAND WRITING. 16. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD CIT/DR THAT THE NOTI FICATION U/S 10(23C)(VI) WAS WITHDRAWN AS PER THE 13TH PROVISO T O THE SAID SECTION. THE SAID PROVISO READS AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 11 PROVIDED ALSO THAT WHERE THE FUND OR INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN S UB- CLAUSE (IV) OR TRUST OR INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (V) IS NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR IS APPROVED BY THE PRE SCRIBED AUTHORITY, AS THE CASE MAY BE, OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUC ATIONAL INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (VI) OR ANY HOSPITAL OR O THER MEDICAL INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (VIA), IS APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND SUBSEQUENTLY THAT GOVERNMENT OR THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IS SATISFIED THAT (I ) SUCH FUND OR INSTITUTION OR TRUST OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER ME DICAL INSTITUTION HAS NOT (A ) APPLIED ITS INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION S CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (A) OF THE THIRD PROVISO; OR (B ) INVESTED OR DEPOSITED ITS FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (B) OF THE THIRD PRO VISO; OR (II ) THE ACTIVITIES OF SUCH FUND OR INSTITUTION OR TRUST OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INST ITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION (A ) ARE NOT GENUINE; OR (B ) ARE NOT BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL OR ANY OF THE CONDITIONS SUBJECT TO WHICH IT WAS NOTIFIED OR APPROVED, IT MAY, AT ANY TIME AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST THE PROPOSED ACTION TO THE CO NCERNED FUND OR INSTITUTION OR TRUST OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR O THER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTIT UTION, RESCIND THE NOTIFICATION OR, BY ORDER, WITHDRAW THE APPROVAL, A S THE CASE MAY BE, AND FORWARD A COPY OF THE ORDER RESCINDING THE NOTIFICATION OR WITHDRAWING THE APPROVAL TO SUCH FUND OR INSTITUTIO N OR TRUST OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION AND TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 12 THUS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF ISSUING NOTICE UNDER THE CLAUSE. IT IS ONLY THE REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY TO BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD AND WHICH HAS BEEN P ROVIDED IN THE INSTANT CASE. 17. REGARDING THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSES SEE IN THE CASE OF MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY VS CIT(E), JAIPUR IN ITA N O. 1118/JP/2016, THE LD. CIT/DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THAT CASE, IT HAS INTER-ALIA BEEN OBSERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS FOLLOWS: ' THE LANGUAGE AND TENOR OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DO NOT EXHIBIT ANY THOUGHT PROCESS OF LD. CIT(E). THE MATTER WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BRINGS OUT THE T HOUGHT PROCESS AND APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE LD.CIT(E)BUT WAS ONL Y SIGNED BY THE DCIT (HQR.)'. THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE DUE APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE CIT(E), JAIPUR, THE ORIGINAL FOLDER RELATING TO ASS ESSEE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE BENCH DURING THE COURSE OF HEAR ING WITH SPECIFIC MENTION OF THE DRAFT OF SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE PUT UP FO R APPROVAL OF CIT (E) VIDE ORDER SHEET DATED 03.05.2016 (MENTIONED AS DFA- DRAFT FOR APPROVAL) AND COPY OF SAID ORDER-SHEET HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED AS PART OF PAPER BOOK ON 05.03.2018. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CORRECTIONS WERE MADE TO EACH PAGE OF THE SAID NOTI CE BY CIT(E) HIMSELF AS EVIDENCE FROM THE CHANGES/ADDITIONS TO T EXT MADE IN HIS OWN HANDWRITING. PARTICULARLY PARA-5 HAS BEEN TOTAL LY HAND WRITTEN AND ADDED. KINDLY SEE BACKSIDE OF PAGE-4 OF NOTICE. ALL THESE CHANGES ARE REFLECTED IN THE FINAL SHOW-CAUSE ISSUED. THESE SHOW DUE APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF CIT(E). FURTHER, THE CIT(E) HAS HIMSELF CONDUCTED THE HEARING ON 14.06.2016 AS EVID ENT FROM THE ORDER- ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 13 SHEET NOTING OF EVEN DATE IN HIS HANDWRITING, WHICH ALSO SHOWS DUE APPLICATION OF MIND. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED THAT ONLY UNCORRECTED DRAFT WAS PUT UP BEFORE CIT(E) VIDE ORDER SHEET NOTING DA TED 03.05.2016 AS EVIDENT FROM THE NOTING DFA (DRAFT FOR APPROVAL) OF SHOW CAUSE LETTER ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IS PUT UP FOR KIND PERUSAL, APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE PLEASE. THUS, THERE IS COMPLETE APPLICATION OF MIN D ON THE PART OF CIT(E). 18. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS FO R ISSUE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 AND UNDER THIRTEENTH PROVISION TO SECTION 10(23C) ARE PARI MATERIA VIDE A LATER JUDGEMENT OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF SHRI HARI RAM YADAV VS PCIT (ITA NO. 215/JP/2018 DATED 31.12.2018) WHEREIN THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE, THE DECISION IN CASE OF MODERN SCHOOL SO CIETY STAND DISTINGUISHABLE. 19. THE LD CIT/DR FURTHER DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO T HE SEC. 292BB OF THE IT ACT, 1961, WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 292BB. WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED IN ANY PROCE EDING OR CO-OPERATED IN ANY INQUIRY RELATING TO AN ASSESS MENT OR REASSESSMENT, IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT ANY NOTICE UN DER ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE SERV ED UPON HIM, HAS BEEN DULY SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND SUCH ASSESSEE SHALL BE P RECLUDED FROM TAKING ANY OBJECTION IN ANY PROCEEDING OR INQUIRY U NDER THIS ACT THAT THE NOTICE WAS ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 14 (A ) NOT SERVED UPON HIM; OR (B ) NOT SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME; OR (C ) SERVED UPON HIM IN AN IMPROPER MANNER: PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SUCH OBJECTION BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF SUCH ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD CIT/DR THAT ANY DEFECT I N THE NOTICE CAN BE RAISED BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE PROCEEDINGS. IN THE PRESENT CASE ASSESSEE APPEARED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, SUBMITTED ITS REPLIES, WHICH LEADS TO BELIEVE THAT NOTICE UNDER THE PROVISION OF LAW HAS BEEN CORRECTLY ISSUED. NO DEFECT WAS MENTIONED BY THE AS SESSEE TILL THE COMPLETION OF THE PROCEEDINGS. ONCE ASSESSEE HAS PA RTICIPATED ACTIVELY IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE REGARDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD HAS BEEN OBSERVED, IT PR ECLUDES HIMSELF FROM RAISING PROCEDURAL DEFECTS IN NOTICE. THE IRRE GULARITIES, IF ANY GOT CURED BY SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE. SECTIO N 292BB IS CURATIVE IN NATURE WHICH CURES ALL INFIRMITIES IN N OTICE, IF RESPONDED. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF COO RDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF CHANDRA BHAN VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IN ITA NO. 4/AGRA/2002 DATED 13.10.2005) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT: 'IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE L D. AO THROUGH HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FROM TIME TO TIME AND VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE CASE WERE DISCUSSED THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE OR CAUSE TO BE PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 15 ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE WOULD RELY IN SUPPORT OF THE RETURN U/S 158BC. THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN FULL OPPORTUNITY TO S UBSTANTIATE ALL HIS CLAIMS. THUS, THE WANT OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 1 43(2) ON THE PART OF THE AO, IF THERE IS INDEED ANY SUCH LAPSE, IS ONLY A PROCEDURAL ERROR TO BE CURED BY SUITABLE DIRECTIONS TO THE LD. AO. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO PREJUDICE TO THE A SSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF REQUESTED THAT NO CURATIVE STE PS BE TAKEN. HENCE, NO FURTHER ACTION APPEARS TO BE NECESSARY.' 20. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD CIT/DR T HAT ALL THE OBJECTIONS/CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(E) DURING RESCINDING/WITHDRAWALS PROCEEDING S, WHICH WAS NEVER DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. INSTEAD OF RAISING THE OBJECT ION BEFORE LD. CIT(E) THE ASSESSEE RAISED THIS GROUND AS ADDITIONAL GROUN D IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AFTER LAPSE OF SO MUCH TIME, WHICH VERY WELL ESTABLISHES THE FACT THAT IT IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT, AND ASSESSEE FEARS TO LOSE THE GROUND ON MERIT. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITI ONAL GROUND OF APPEAL SO TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 21. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURSUED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD AR HAS PLACED HEAVY RE LIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY VS CIT(E), JAIPUR (SUPRA) AND WE THEREFORE DEEM IT APP ROPRIATE TO REFER TO ITS RELEVANT FINDINGS WHICH ARE REPRODUCED IN VERBATIM AS UNDER: 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WE LL RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE FIRST OBJECTION OF THE ASSE SSEE IS ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 16 REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THAT I T WAS NOT SIGNED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND THEREFORE, IT IS INV ALID. THE POWER AND JURISDICTION TO WITHDRAW THE APPROVAL GRANTED U /S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT IS PROVIDED UNDER 13TH PROVISO TO THE SAID SECTION WHICH READS AS UNDER:- PROVIDED ALSO THAT WHERE THE FUND OR INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (IV) OR TRUST OR INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (V ) IS NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 7 [OR IS APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, AS THE CASE MAY BE,] OR ANY U NIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN SUB-CL AUSE (VI ) OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION REFERRED TO I N SUB- CLAUSE (VIA), IS APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND SUBSEQUENTLY THAT GOVERNMENT OR THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IS SATI SFIED THAT (I ) SUCH FUND OR INSTITUTION OR TRUST OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER ME DICAL INSTITUTION HAS NOT (A ) APPLIED ITS INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION S CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (A) OF THE THIRD PROVISO; OR (B ) INVESTED OR DEPOSITED ITS FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (B ) OF THE THIRD PROVISO; OR (II ) THE ACTIVITIES O F SUCH FUND OR INSTITUTION OR TRUST OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION (A ) ARE NOT GENUINE; OR (B ) ARE NOT BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL OR ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 17 ANY OF THE CONDITIONS SUBJECT TO WHI CH IT WAS NOTIFIED OR APPROVED, IT MAY, AT ANY TIME AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST THE PROPOSED ACTION TO THE CO NCERNED FUND OR INSTITUTION OR TRUST OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION, RESCIND THE NOTIFICATION OR, BY ORDER, WITHDRAW THE APPROVAL, A S THE CASE MAY BE, AND FORWARD A COPY OF THE ORDER RESCINDING THE NOTIFICATION OR WITHDRAWING THE APPROVAL TO SUCH FUND OR INSTITUTIO N OR TRUST OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR O THER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTH ER MEDICAL INSTITUTION AND TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE 13 TH PROVISO TO SECTION 10(23C)(VI) CONFERS THE POWER/ JURISDICTION TO WITHDRAW THE APPROVAL TO THE GOVERN MENT OR THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY. IT FURTHER POSTULATES THAT TH E PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, IF SATISFIED THAT SUCH FUND OR INSTITUTI ON HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED THEREUNDER , CAN WITHDRAW THE APPROVAL. FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDING S TO WITHDRAW THE APPROVAL THE MANDATORY PRE-CONDITION IS THE SAT ISFACTION OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY. UNDISPUTEDLY THE PRESCRIB ED AUTHORITY IS THE LD. CIT(E) AND THE SATISFACTION OF THE PRESCRIB ED AUTHORITY IS A MUST BEFORE ISSUING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR WITHD RAWAL OF THE APPROVAL GRANTED U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. THEREF ORE, WHAT IS MATERIAL AND MANDATORY CONDITION IS THE SATISFACTIO N OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND NON ELSE. IN CASE IN HAND THE IMPUGNED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 08.07.2016 WAS SIGNED BY TH E DCIT (HQR.) AND ISSUED AS PER DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT( E). IN PARAS 2 AND 6 OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IN OUR OPINION ARE R ELEVANT TO THE ISSUE AND THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 18 2. IN THIS REGARD, I AM DIRECTED TO STATE THAT YOU R INSTITUTION/SOCIETY HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF FOLLOWING ISSU ES:- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 6. YOUR CASE IS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR ON 25.07.2016 AT 12 .30 P.M. IN THE INCOME TAX OFFICE (EXEMPTIONS) ROOM NO. 303, 3 RD FLOOR, KAILASH HEIGHTS, LAL KOTHI, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR. YOU MAY ATTEND EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH AN AUTHORIZED REPRESEN TATIVE IN THIS BEHALF (HOLDING VALID POWER OF ATTORNEY). ANY FAILU RE TO COMPLY MAY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING FURTHER TO SAY FROM HIS SIDE IN THIS REGARD, AND THE CASE M AY THEREFORE, BE ACCORDINGLY DECIDED. THE LANGUAGE AND TENOR OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DO NOT EXHIBIT ANY THOUGHT PROCESS OF LD. CIT(E) BUT IT REVEALS IT WAS ISSUED AND SIGNED BY DCIT(HQR.) AS PER INSTRUCTIONS AND DIRECT IONS OF LD. CIT(E). THE MATTER WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BRINGS OUT THE THOUGHT PROCESS AND APPLICATI ON OF MIND BY THE LD. CIT(E) BUT WAS ONLY SIGNED BY THE DCIT (HQR .). IN CASE IN HAND IT IS APPARENT THAT THE LD. CIT(E) DELEGATED I TS POWERS TO DCIT (HQR.) TO ISSUE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND THEREFO RE, IT IS BASED ON THE SATISFACTION OF THE DCIT (HQR.) AND NO T OF LD. CIT(E). PARA 2 AND 6 OF THE IMPUGNED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE CLE ARLY MANIFEST THAT IT WAS ISSUED BY THE DCIT (HQR.) AND NOT BY T HE CIT(E). THE LANGUAGE OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DOES NOT GIVE ANY IMPRESSION OR INFERENCE THAT IT IS AN EXPRESSION OF THE SATISF ACTION OF LD. CIT(E). THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ARUN KANTI VS. CIT (SUPRA) WHILE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OF VALI DITY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 263 OF THE ACT NOT SIGNED B Y THE LD. CIT HAS OBSERVED IN PARA 5 AND 5.1 AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 19 A SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE KOLKATA BENCH OF T HIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF M/S ASSAM BANGAL CARRIERS VS. CIT (SUPRA) I N PARAS 7 AND 8 AS UNDER:- 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE RECORDS SHOWS THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT DATED 26.02.2013 WAS SIGNED BY A.C.I.T.(HQ)-XXI, KO LKATA AND NOT BY C.I.T. THE QUESTION REGARDING VALIDITY OF TH E ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT WHEN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 2 63 OF THE ACT IS NOT SIGNED AND ISSUED BY C.I.T. AND HAD COME FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BARDHMAN CO-OP MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. VS CIT, BURDWAN (SUPRA). THIS TRIBUNAL ON IDENTICAL FACTS AS IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS :- 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE RECORD AND WE FIND THAT DELAY OF 290 DAYS IN FILING IN THE SE CASES HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO MISTAKE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE S COUNSEL. THE COUNSEL HAS CLEARLY ADMITTED THE MISTAKE ON HIS PAR T. WHEN THE DELAY IN FILING OF THESE APPEALS IS ATTRIBUTED TO T HE MISTAKE OF THE CONSULTANT, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, ASSESSEE SHO ULD NOT BE PENALIZED ON THIS COUNT. THE CASE LAW REFERRED BY T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUPPORTS THIS PROPOSITION. AC CORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY. 5. AS REGARDS THE MATTER IN APPE AL, WE NOTE THAT THE SAME IS AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CI T U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. AT THE OUTSET, IN THIS CASE, LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 26 3 OF THE ACT IN THESE CASE, WAS ISSUED BY LETTER DATED 06-03-2007. THE SAID NOTICE WAS SIGNED BY ACIT, HQRS., BURDWAN FOR COMMI SSIONER. REFERRING TO THIS ASPECT, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE PLEADED THAT SECTION 263 OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR NOTICE AND ADJUDICATION BY THE LD. CIT. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CLAIME D THAT SINCE NOTICE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED BY T HE LD. COMMISSIONER. THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED IS DEFECTIVE AND THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED O N THIS GROUND ITSELF. IN THIS REGARD, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E REFERRED TO THE ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 20 DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE COU RSE OF CIT V. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY (2012) 25 TAXMANN.COM 242 (ALL. ). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REFERRED TO THE DE CISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SATISH KUMAR KASHRI V. ITO 104 ITD 382 (PAT). ITA NO.706/KOL/2013 M/S. ASSAM BENGAL CARRIE RS. A.YR.2008-09 4 6. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTE D THAT ABOVE IS NOT THE MATERIAL DEFECT AND HE SUBMITTED THAT TH ERE IS NO REASON TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, ON THIS ACCOUNT. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE FIND THAT SECTION 263(1) OF THE ACT PROV IDES AS UNDER:- THE CIT MAY CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT, AND IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE HE MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY, PASS SUCH ORDER THEREON AS T HE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, INCLUDING AN ORD ER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT, OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSM ENT AND DIRECTING FRESH ASSESSMENT. NOW WE CAN ALSO REFER TO THE NOTICE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS NO TICE WAS SIGNED AS UNDER:- YOURS FAITHFULLY SD/- VIKRAMADITYA (VI KRAMADITDYA) ACIT, HQRS., BURDWAN, FOR COMMISSIONER. FROM THE A BOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SAID NOTICE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT HA S NOT BEEN SIGNED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RATHER IT HAS B EEN SIGNED BY ACIT, HQRS., BURDWAN. THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY (SUPRA) HAS EXPOUND ED THAT WHEN THE LD. CIT HAS NOT RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION, BUT IT WAS THE SATISFACTION OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TECHNICAL) WHO IS NOT COMPETENT TO REVISE HIS ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, THE ORDER PASSED WAS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. THE RELEVANT POR TION OF THE ORDER OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT READS AS UNDE R:- 6. ON PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS, IT WILL BE ABU NDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 299-BB DEALS WITH THE PRO CEDURE FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE AND IN CASE, THERE IS A DEFECTIVE SERVICE OF NOTICE, IT PROVIDES THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS COOPER ATED, IT WILL NOT ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 21 BE OPEN FOR HIM TO RAISE THE PLEA, WHEREAS IN THE I NSTANT CASE, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE SERVICE OF NOTICE, BUT THE I NITIAL ISSUANCE OF NOTICE, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AS A FINDING HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT TH E NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED UNDER THE SIGNATURE OF INCOME-TAX (TECH NICAL), WHEREAS IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF POWERS UNDER S ECTION 263(1), IT IS ONLY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX T O ISSUE NOTICE. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO ADD THAT PLEAS CAN BE RAISED ONLY OUT OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL OR OTHER AUTHORITIE S, BUT THE PLEA, WHICH WAS NOT RAISED AT ANY STAGE, CANNOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THIS COURT. NO OTHER ARGUMENTS HA VE BEEN ADVANCED IN RESPECT OF OTHER QUESTIONS FRAMED IN TH E MEMO OF APPEAL. 8. SIMILARLY, WE NOTE THAT IN THE CASE OF SATISH KR. KESHARI (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THAT WHEN TH E NOTICE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT WAS NOT UNDER THE SEAL AND SIGNATURE OF LD. CIT AND SUFFERED FOR WANT OF DETAILS ON THE BASIS OF WH ICH LD. CIT CAME INTO CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OF FICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E, ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT BY THE LD. CIT WAS INVALID. ITA NO.706/KOL/2013 M/S. ASSAM BENGAL CARRIERS. A.YR.20 08-09 5 9. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROVISION O F LAW AND THE CASE LAW IN THIS REGARD, IT IS CLEAR THAT FOR A VAL ID ASSUMPTION OF THE JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, THE NOTICE IS SUED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT SHOULD BE ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT. IN THIS CA SE, IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY ACIT, HQRS, BU RDWAN WHO IS NOT COMPETENT TO ASSUME JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF TH E ACT. HENCE, THE NOTICE WAS NOT UNDER THE SEAL AND SIGNATURE OF LD. CIT. HENCE, AS PER THE PRECEDENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE, THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT IN THIS CASE IS NOT VALID. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT PASSED I N THESE CASES ARE QUASHED. 8. FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BEING ID ENTICAL TO THE CASE REFERRED TO ABOVE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION WE HOLD THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTIO N U/S 263 OF THE ACT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT VALID. ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS ACCORDINGLY QUASHED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 22 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CONCLUSION, THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY (SUPRA) WHILE DEALING WITH THE VALIDIT Y OF NOTICE AND APPLICABLE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 299BB H AS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 299BB NOTICE DEEMED TO BE VALID IN CERTAIN CIRCUM STANCES WHERE AS ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED IN ANY PROCEEDING OR CO- OPERATED IN ANY INQUIRY RELATING TO AN ASSESSMENT O R REASSESSMENT, IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT ANY NOTICE UN DER ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE SERV ED UPON HIM, HAS BEEN DULY SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND SUCH ASSESSEE SHALL BE P RECLUDED FROM TAKING ANY OBJECTION IN ANY PROCEEDING OR INQUIRY U NDER THE ACT THAT THE NOTICE WAS-- (A) NOT SERVED UPON HIM; OR (B) NOT SERVED UPON TIME IN TIME; OR (C) SERVED UPON HIM IN AN IMPROPER MANNER; PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHA LL APPLY WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SUCH OBJECTION BEFORE THE C OMPLETION OF SUCH ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT. THUS, IT IS SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE NOT ICE ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITY OTHER THAN THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IS NO T VALID AND CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(E) IS WIT HOUT JURISDICTION. THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE CONFERS THE JUR ISDICTION TO PROCEED AND TO PASS THE ORDER. IN CASE THE NOTICE I TSELF IS NOT VALID THEN THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE PRESCRIB ED AUTHORITY BASED ON THE INVALID NOTICE BECOME INVALID AND CONS EQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITY IS INVALID AND VOID A BINITIO FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. FURTHER, INVALID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE VITIATES THE PROCEEDING AND CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER. HENCE, WE ARE O F THE ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 23 CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED B Y THE LD. CIT(E) IS INVALID AND LIABLE TO QUASH ON THIS GROUN D. 22. THE RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE ABOVE DECISION RENDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IS THAT THE 13 TH PROVISO TO SECTION 10(23C)(VI) CONFERS THE POWER/ JURISDICTION TO WITHDRAW THE APPROVAL TO THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY I.E, LD. CIT(E) AND THEREFORE, THE SATISF ACTION OF THE LD CIT(E) IS A MUST BEFORE ISSUING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION OF THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPROVAL GRANTED U/S 10(23 C)(VI) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WHAT IS MATERIAL AND MANDATORY CONDITION IS THE SATISFACTION OF THE LD CIT(E) AND NO ONE ELSE. FURTHER, THE LANG UAGE AND TENOR OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE MUST EXHIBIT THE THOUGHT PROCESS AND APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE LD. CIT(E) AND THUS AN EXPRESSION OF TH E SATISFACTION OF LD. CIT(E) EVEN THOUGH THE SAME MAY BE SIGNED BY THE DC IT (HQR.) OR ANY OTHER SUBORDINATE AUTHORITY. HOWEVER, WHERE THE LD. CIT(E) HAS DELEGATED HIS POWERS TO ANY OTHER AUTHORITY TO ISSU E SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND IT IS BASED ON THE SATISFACTION OF THAT OTHER A UTHORITY AND NOT OF LD. CIT(E), IT WONT SATISFY THE MANDATORY CONDITION. 23. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE DRAFT OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WAS PREPARED BY ITO (HQRS) AND PUT UP FOR PE RUSAL, APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE OF THE LD CIT(E) ON 3.5.2016. THEREAFTER , THE LD CIT(E) HAS CARRIED OUT CERTAIN CORRECTIONS/MODIFICATIONS IN TH E LANGUAGE, AS EVIDENT FROM THE DRAFT OF THE SHOW-CAUSE AND THE CORRECTION S/MODIFICATION SO MADE BY THE LD CIT(E) IN HIS OWN HAND WRITING, AND THEREAFTER, AFTER SEEKING THE APPROVAL OF THE LD CIT(E) AS EVIDENT FR OM THE ORDER SHEET, THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WAS FINALLY ISSUED TO THE ASS ESSEE WHICH WAS SIGNED BY THE ITO(HQS) ON BEHALF OF LD CIT(E), JAIP UR. THE DRAFT OF THE ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 24 SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE AND THE CORRECTIONS/MODIFICATION SO MADE BY THE LD CIT(E) ARE PART OF THE RECORDS AND ARE NOT EXTRANEO US MATERIAL AS SO CONTENDED BY THE LD AR. THE ONLY RATIONAL BASIS TO DISCERN THE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT PROCESS OF THE LD CIT(E) IS EITHER TO W ATCH HIM DICTATING THE LANGUAGE OF THE SHOW-CAUSE TO HIS JUNIORS OR TO SEE HIS PERSONAL NOTINGS/CORRECTIONS ON THE DRAFT SO PREPARED AND PU T UP FOR HIS REVIEW AND APPROVAL. IN THE INSTANT CASE, HIS NOTINGS/COR RECTIONS ARE CLEARLY APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS SO PRODUCED BEFORE US BY THE LD CIT/DR WHICH REFLECTS HIS MIND AND SATISFACTION TO THE PRO POSED ACTION. IN LIGHT OF THESE UNDISPUTED FACTS WHICH ARE CLEARLY EMERGIN G FROM THE RECORDS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LANGUAGE AND TENOR OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DO CLEARLY EXHIBIT THE THOUGHT PROCESS AND APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE LD. CIT(E) WITH INPUTS FROM THE ITO (HQ R.) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND THUS AN EXPRESSION OF HIS SA TISFACTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO WITHDRAW THE EXEMPTION SO GRANTE D TO THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY. THEREFORE, PARA 2 OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NO TICE WHERE THE ITO (HQR.) STATES THAT HE HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO STATE T HAT YOUR INSTITUTION HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT AND THEREAFTER, IN PARA 6, WHERE HE STATES THAT YOUR C ASE IS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE CIT(E), JAIPUR AND FINALLY, HIS SIGNATURE ON BEHALF OF THE LD CIT(E) HAVE TO BE SEEN AND READ IN CONTEXT O F SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE LD CIT(E) AND NOT THAT OF ITO(HQS) OF THE PROPOSED ACTION OF WITHDRAWAL OF EXEMPTION. THE LEGAL PROPO SITION SO EMERGING FROM THE SAID DECISION IN FACT SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. IN LIGHT OF THE SAME, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEDE TO THE CONTENT ION OF THE LD AR THAT THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS ARE VITIATED FOR WANT OF SIGNATURE OF LD CIT(E) ON THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WHEN THE ENTIRETY O F FACTS CLEARLY ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 25 DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE REFLECTS THE THOUGHT PROCESS AND APPLICATION OF MIND AND THE SATISFACTION SO REC ORDED OF THE LD. CIT(E). IN THE RESULT, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND SO RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 24. NOW, WE REFER TO OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MER ITS OF THE CASE AND THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. 25. THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE UNIVE RSITY IS ESTABLISHED UNDER A STATUTE BY THE STATE OF RAJASTH AN VIDE ACT NO. 6 OF 2008 NAMELY, SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY PACHERI BARI (JHU NJHUNU) ACT, 2008. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT A UNIVERSITY IS A DIFFERENT AN D DISTINCT CLASS FROM SOCIETIES, TRUSTS AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION S. UNLIKE TRUSTS, SOCIETIES AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS THAT C AN HAVE DIFFERENT OBJECTS AND MAY UNDERTAKE ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN EDU CATION, A UNIVERSITY IS ESTABLISHED WITH THE SOLE OBJECT OF EDUCATION. S IMILARLY, THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY IS AN AUTONOMOUS, STATUTORY, EXISTING SO LELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION AND NOT-FOR-PROFIT BODY AND ALL THE PO WERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY ARE RELATED TO ITS SOLE OB JECT OF EDUCATION. FURTHERMORE, THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY BEING A STATU TORY BODY BELONGS TO THE PUBLIC AND IS NOT A PRIVATE PROPERTY OF ANY PER SON AND ITS OBJECTS CANNOT BE CHANGED AND CONTINUE TO BE ONLY EDUCATION TILL ITS LEGAL STATUS AS A UNIVERSITY IS INTACT. 26. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BEING A UNIVERSITY ESTABL ISHED UNDER A STATE ACT I.E. THE SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY ACT, THE APPELLAN T UNIVERSITY IS RECOGNISED UNDER SECTION 2(F) OF THE UNIVERSITY GRA NTS COMMISSION ACT, ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 26 1956 WHICH EMPOWERS THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE UGC ACT TO GRANT DEGREES IN ALL COURSES OF EDUCATIO N AND IMPART EDUCATION IN ALL COURSES OF EDUCATION. IT IS RESPEC TFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE UGC ACT, BEING A SPECIFIC STATUTE GOVERNING THE UNIVERSITIES IN THE COUNTRY AND BEING A CENTRAL ACT, OVERRIDES AND PREV AILS OVER INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS OF ANY STATE ACT. 27. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY RECEIVED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT VID E NOTIFICATION NO.06/2009 DATED 29.07.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ONWARDS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT UNIVER SITYS ENTITLEMENT FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) IS AS A UNI VERSITY AND NOT AS OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE SAID EXEMPTION WAS GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY W ITHOUT ANY CONDITION I.E. FOR IMPARTING EDUCATION AND NOT FOR ONLY SOME LIMITED COURSES. IT IS REITERATED THAT ALL THE UNIVERSITIES ARE ESTABLISHED WITH THE SOLE OBJECT OF EDUCATION. THE UNIVERSITIES BEING ES TABLISHED BY A STATUTE ARE STATE/PUBLIC AUTHORITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF AR TICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND HAVE GOT THE POWER TO MAK E RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR ITS AUTONOMOUS FUNCTIONING WHICH HA VE GOT FORCE OF LAW AND OVERRIDING EFFECT OVER INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS OF THE STATE ACT. 28. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSMENTS FOR THE AY 20 09-10, AY 2010- 11, AY 2011-12 AND AY 2012-13 HAVE BEEN COMPLETED O N RETURNED NIL INCOME UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT A ND EXEMPTION HAS BEEN ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT. IT IS PERTINENT TO STATE THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2012-13, THE ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 27 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CATEGORICALLY NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY IS PURELY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. 29. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT DURI NG THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14, THE AO ALSO DID N OT FIND THAT THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY WAS PURSING ANY ACTIVITY OTHER THAN EDUCATION NOR WAS THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY FOUND CARRYING ANY ACT IVITY FOR PROFIT ONLY. RATHER, ALL THE RECEIPTS FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YE AR WERE FROM EDUCATION AND ALL THE APPLICATION WAS TOWARDS EDUCA TION. HOWEVER, THE AO INSTEAD OF FINALISING THE ASSESSMENT, AND WITHOU T ANY SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE AND WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, MADE A REFERENCE TO THE LD. CIT(E) FOR WITHDRAWAL OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10 (23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREAFTER, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. F.NO./10/CIT(E)/JPR/WITHDWL-10(23C)(VI)/2015-16/648 DATED 03.05.2016 WAS ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (HQ RS.) ASKING THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE EX EMPTION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT SHO ULD NOT BE WITHDRAWN. THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY SUBMITTED ITS R EPLY DATED 06.06.2016 TO THE AFORESAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. HOWE VER, THE LD. CIT (E) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.09.2016 PASSED ORD ER OF WITHDRAWAL OF THE EXEMPTION GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FROM THE AY 2013- 14 AND ONWARDS WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PRESENT APPEAL. 30. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE LD CIT(E ) FOR WITHDRAWING THE EXEMPTION OF THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY UNDER SEC TION 10(23C)(VI) IS ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 28 SUMMED UP IN PARAGRAPH 9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATE D 14.09.2016 AS UNDER: 9. IN THE CASE OF APPLICANT THE CONDITION MENTIONE D IN THE CLAUSE (VI) OF SEC. 10(23C) THAT THE SOCIETY MUST EXISTS S OLELY FOR EDUCATION IS VIOLATED AND ALSO UNIVERSITY HAS NOT C ARRIED OUT THE ACTIVITIES AS PER THE OBJECTS BY RUNNING COURSES BE YOND ITS OBJECTS AND APPROVED BY STATE LEGISLATURE AS WELL AS PRESCR IBED AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI). THEREFORE, ITS ACTIVITIE S CANNOT BE HELD AS GENUINE CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. THEREFORE, THE PR OVISO 13 TH OF SEC. 10(23C) IS ATTRACTED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISC USSION MADE ABOVE, EXERCISING THE POWER GIVEN UNDER THE ABOVE S AID PROVISO, IT IS HELD THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT ARE NOT GENUINE AS BEING CARRIED OUT BEYOND THE APPROVED OBJECTS AND I T IS NOT AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WHICH IS EXISTING SOLELY FO R EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, THEREFORE, EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C )(VI) GRANTED EARLIER VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.01/2008-09 DAT ED 04.04.2008 IS HEREBY WITHDRAWN. 31. THE CIT(E) HAS FURTHER EXPLAINED HIS REASONING IN PARAGRAPHS 6.2 AND 6.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT HOW THE SOCIETY HAS CEASED TO EXIST SOLELY FOR EDUCATION AND THE ACTIVITIES OF THE APPE LLANT UNIVERSITY ARE BEYOND ITS OBJECTS AS UNDER: 6.2 FROM THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS TRYING TO DRAW BENEFIT FROM CLAUSE 14(S ) WHICH TALKS ABOUT ARRANGEMENTS FOR PROMOTING THE HEALTH AND GEN ERAL WELFARE OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE UNIVERSITY. THE ASSESSEE IS SUBMITTING THAT THE FUNCTION OF THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY IS TO PROVIDE FOR HEALTH CARE OF ITS STAFF AND CARRY OUT ALL INCIDENT AL AND ANCILLARY ACT IN THIS REGARD AND HENCE, MAINTAINING A TEACHING HO SPITAL IS PART OF THE OBJECT AND ALSO INCIDENTAL TO EDUCATION. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE HOSPITAL HAS BEEN THERE TO TA KE CARE OF THE HEALTH OF THE STAFF OF THE UNIVERSITY, DOES NOT HOL D GOOD AS IN ITS SUBMISSION, THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF STATED THAT TH E HOSPITAL RUN BY UNIVERSITY IS A PART OF PREREQUISITE EDUCATIONAL FACILITY FOR CLINICAL TRAINING AND MEDICAL COURSES. THUS, ASSESS EE IS ITSELF ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 29 CLAIMING THAT THE HOSPITAL IS BEING RUN BY THE UNIV ERSITY FOR THE MEDICAL COURSES, THE COURSES WHICH ARE NOT PERMITTE D TO BE RUN BY THE UNIVERSITY AND ARE NOT PART OF THE OBJECTS A PPROVED UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI). 6.3 AS THE MEDICAL COURSES ARE BEING RUN BY THE UNI VERSITY WITHOUT ANY LEGAL AUTHORITY, IT CANNOT BE HELD AS G ENUINE COURSES AND ONCE THE COURSES ITSELF ARE HELD NOT AS GENUINE , THE HOSPITAL CANNOT BE HELD PART OF THE EDUCATIONAL COURSES. AS THE UNIVERSITY IS RUNNING A HOSPITAL, IT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE EXIS TING SOLELY FOR EDUCATION. FROM THE ABOVE, IT MAY BE SEEN THAT THE WITHDRAWAL OF EXEMPTION BY THE CIT(E) IS ON THE PRIMARY GROUND THAT THE APPELL ANT UNIVERSITY IS RUNNING SOME COURSES LIKE A.N.M., G.N.M. AND B.ED. WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORITY AND HENCE, THESE COURSES CANNOT BE HELD T O BE GENUINE COURSES. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE CIT(E) THAT THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY IS DOING ANY ACTIVITY OTHER THAN EDUCATION OR THAT THE HOSPITAL IS BEING RUN FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE OR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TE ACHING AS A LAB FOR MEDICAL COURSES AND TAKING CARE OF THE HEALTH AND W ELFARE OF THE STUDENTS AND STAFF OF THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY. 32. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDING OF THE CIT(E) IS GROSSLY ERRONEOUS, PRESUMPTIVE, WITHOUT ANY BASIS, IN IGNOR ANCE OF THE RELEVANT LAW GOVERNING UNIVERSITIES AND SUFFERS FROM NON-APP LICATION OF MIND BY TREATING THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY AS A SOCIETY AND NOT AS A UNIVERSITY BEING A STATUTORY BODY ESTABLISHED UNDER A STATE AC T AND GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE UGC ACT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN FACTUALLY, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE COURSES RUN B Y THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY ARE INVALID RATHER AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE PASS-OUT STUDENTS ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 30 OF THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY ARE WELL PLACED AND EMP LOYED IN VARIOUS STATE/ CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE JOBS AND THE PASS-OUT STUDENTS GOING ABROAD FOR HIGHER STUDIES AND JOBS GET THEIR DEGREES VERIFIED AND CERTIFIED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT ITSELF AS VALID D EGREES FOR VISA AND SCHOLARSHIP PURPOSES. THUS, THE WHOLE CASE OF THE C IT(E) IS BASED ON HIS OWN ASSUMPTIONS AND SURMISES AND CONTRARY TO TH E CORRECT FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION. 33. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT QUESTION OF LAW THAT WHET HER THE DEGREES AWARDED BY THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY IN COURSES OF A .N.M., G.N.M. AND B.ED. ARE VALID IS WELL SETTLED AND FULLY COVERED B Y THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JODHPUR IN CASES TI TLED RAJASTHAN NURSING COUNIL VS SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY & OTHERS ( D .B.S.A.W NO. 671/2018), SUNIL BISHNOI & ORS. V. STATE OF RAJASTH AN & ORS., S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8149/2015 (DECISION ON A.N.M. AND G.N.M. COURSES) AND SHANTI LAL V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9198/2017 (DECISION ON B.ED. COURSE). THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT RELYING ON THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COU RT HELD THAT THE DEGREES OF A.N.M., G.N.M. AND B.ED. ARE AWARDED BY THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY UNDER AUTHORITY OF LAW WHICH ARE COMPLET ELY VALID, THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY BEING A STATUTORY BODY NEEDS N O RECOGNITION FROM ANY OTHER AUTHORITY AND THE PASS OUT STUDENTS ARE A UTOMATICALLY ENTITLED FOR JOBS AND RECOGNITION BY VARIOUS COUNCILS. THE R ELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE JUDGMENTS IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW FOR CONVENIENCE OF READY REFERENCE: AS STATED EARLIER, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE RE SPONDENT NO.3- UNIVERSITY IS A UNIVERSITY ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ST ATUTE AND, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE LAW LAID DOWN IN THE ABOV E REFERRED ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 31 CASES THAT A DEGREE, DIPLOMA OR ANY QUALIFICATION A WARDED BY ANY UNIVERSITY, ESTABLISHED UNDER THE STATUTE, IS AUTOM ATICALLY RECOGNIZED AND NEEDS NO RECOGNITION BY ANY OTHER AU THORITY (SUNIL BISHNOI (SUPRA) PAGE 792 PAPER BOOK 5). 7. AFTER HEARING THE COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES AND A FTER PERUSING THE RECORD, THIS COURT FINDS THAT THE PRECEDENT LAW CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER IS ABSOLUTELY CO VERING THE PRESENT DISPUTE AS THIS COURT HAS HELD IN THE AFORE MENTIONED PRECEDENT LAW THAT THE RESPONDENT SINGHANIA UNIVERS ITY IS A UNIVERSITY ESTABLISHED UNDER THE STATUTE AND, THERE FORE, IN VIEW OF THE PRECEDENT LAW, IT IS AUTOMATICALLY RECOGNISED A ND NEEDS NO RECOGNITION BY ANY OTHER AUTHORITY (SHANTI LAL (SU PRA) PAGE 800 PAPER BOOK 5). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN IT IS SETTLED PROPOSITIO N OF LAW THAT DEGREE/DIPLOMAS OR ANY OTHER QUALIFICATION AWARDED BY THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY ARE SUI-GENERIS AND SELF-VALIDATING AND NEED RECOGNITION OF NO OTHER AUTHORITY, IT NATURALLY FOLLOWS THAT THE APPE LLANT UNIVERSITY CAN RUN AND IMPART EDUCATION IN THOSE COURSES. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT RUNNING OF COURSES IS NOT VALID BUT RESULTING DEGREES ARE VALI D. THUS, IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY CAN R UN ALL COURSES OF EDUCATION. 34. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT REFERENCE TO SECTION 4 OF THE SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY ACT IS NOT RELEVANT AND THE POSITION IN LAW THAT WHETHER A UNIVERSITY REQUIRES APPROVAL FROM STATE GOVERNMENT FOR RUNNING ANY COURSE IS WELL SETTLED AND SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA V. SATE OF M.P. & ORS. REPORTED IN (2013) 15 SCC 677 IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT NEITHER THE STATE GO VERNMENT NOR THE STATE LEGISLATURE IS EMPOWERED TO REGULATE RUNNING OF COURSES BY A ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 32 UNIVERSITY OR TO REQUIRE THE UNIVERSITY TO TAKE STA TE LEGISLATURES OR STATE GOVERNMENTS APPROVAL FOR RUNNING ANY COURSES. 35. IN MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI CASE (SUPRA), SECTION 4 OF THE MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI ACT WAS SIMILAR TO SECTION 4 OF THE SIN GHANIA UNIVERSITY ACT TO THE EFFECT THAT IT REQUIRED THE MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI UNIVERSITY TO TAKE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT BEFORE STARTING COURSES NOT MENTIONED IN THE MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI UNIVERSITY AC T. SECTION 4 OF THE MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI ACT IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW FOR CONVENIENCE OF READY REFERENCE: 4. THE UNIVERSITY SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING POWERS, NAMELY:- (I) TO PROVIDE FOR INSTRUCTION ONLY IN ALL BRANCHES OF VEDIC LEARNING AND PRACTICES INCLUDING DARSHAN, AGAM TANT RA, ITIHAS, PURANAS, UPVEDAS AND GYAN-VIGYAN AND THE PROMOTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE STUDY OF SANSKRIT AS THE UNIVERSITY MAY FROM TIME TO TIME DETERMINE AND TO M AKE PROVISION FOR RESEARCH AND FOR THE ADVANCEMENT IN T HE ABOVE FIELDS AND IN THESE FIELDS . PROVIDED THAT NO COURSE SHALL BE CONDUCTED AND NO CENTRES SHALL BE ESTABLISHED OR RUN WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT. 36. FROM THE ABOVE, IT MAY BE SEEN THAT SECTION 4 O F THE MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI ACT, BEING SIMILAR TO SECTION 4 OF THE SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY ACT, STIPULATED THAT THE MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI UNIVE RSITY WILL RUN ONLY VEDIC COURSES AND WILL REQUIRE PRIOR APPROVAL OF TH E STATE GOVERNMENT BEFORE RUNNING COURSES. MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI UNIVER SITY STARTED RUNNING COURSES LIKE B.TECH., MBA ETC. WITHOUT ANY APPROVAL OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND THIS ISSUE WAS BROUGHT UP BEFO RE THE HON'BLE ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 33 SUPREME COURT. THE HON'BLE APEX COURT WHILE UPHOLDI NG THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH CO URT HELD THAT SUCH A PROVISION IS NOT VALID BEING OVERRIDDEN BY THE RE LEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE UGC ACT, 1956 I.E. SECTION 12 AND 22 OF THE UGC ACT, 1956 WHICH EMPOWERS A UNIVERSITY TO GRANT DEGREES IN ALL COURS ES OF EDUCATION AND THEREFORE, THE SAID CLAUSE IS ULTRA VIRES AND BEYON D THE COMPETENCE OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THE HON'BLE APEX COURT FURTHE R HELD THAT IT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF A UNIVERSITY TO IMPART EDUCATI ON IN ALL COURSES OF EDUCATION AND IT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE ST UDENTS TO RECEIVE EDUCATION IN ANY COURSE OF EDUCATION OF THEIR CHOIC E GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 14, 19 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ANY S UCH PROVISION WHICH REQUIRES A UNIVERSITY TO TAKE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT BEFORE STARTING ANY COURSE IS ULTRA-VIRES AND HENCE , NULL AND VOID AND OF NO EFFECT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MAHARSHI MAH ESH YOGI JUDGMENT ARE EXTRACTED HEREINBELOW FOR CONVENIENCE OF READY REFERENCE: 68. HAVING HEARD THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR TH E APPELLANT, AS WELL AS THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE S TATE, AND HAVING BESTOWED OUR SERIOUS CONSIDERATION TO THE RE SPECTIVE SUBMISSIONS AND HAVING PERUSED THE SCHOLARLY JUDGME NT OF THE DIVISION BENCH AND OTHER MATERIAL PAPERS, AT THE VE RY OUTSET WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT PROVIDING EDUCATION IN AN U NIVERSITY IS THE PRIMARY CONCERN AND OBJECTIVE, WHILE ALL OTHER ACTIVITIES WOULD ONLY BE INCIDENTAL AND ADJUNCT.(PAGE 180 PAPE R BOOK 2) 80. .WE HAVE HELD THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE AP PELLANT UNIVERSITY WAS MAINLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPARTING EDUCATION, WHILE PROMOTION OF VEDIC LEARNING IS ONE OF THE PRI MARY OBJECTIVES OF THE UNIVERSITY. ANY ATTEMPT ON THE PA RT OF THE STATE TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAID MAIN OBJECT VIZ., IMPARTING OF EDUCATION, WOULD AMOUNT TO AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION . CONSEQUENTLY, THE AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS INTRODUCED U NDER ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 34 THE 1995 ACT TO SECTION 4(1) AND ALSO THE INSERTION OF THE PROVISO, HAS TO BE HELD ULTRA-VIRES. (PAGE 184 PAPE R BOOK 2) 105. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, SECTION 12 OF THE U NIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION ACT, 1956 WOULD ENCOMPASS APART F ROM DETERMINING THE COURSE CONTENTS WITH REFERENCE TO W HICH THE STANDARD OF TEACHING AND ITS MAINTENANCE IS TO BE M ONITORED BY THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, WOULD ALSO INC LUDE THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT MAY BE MADE AVAILABLE, EITHER I N THE UNIVERSITY OR IN OTHER CAMPUSES, SUCH AS THE CENTER S, IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT SUCH STANDARD OF EDUCATION, TEACHING AND EXAMINATION, AS WELL AS RESEARCH ARE MAINTAINED WIT HOUT ANY FALL IN STANDARD. THEREFORE, WHILE UPHOLDING THE CO NCLUSION OF THE DIVISION BENCH THAT IT IS BEYOND THE LEGISLATIV E COMPETENCE OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO STIPULATE ANY RESTRICTI ON, AS REGARDS THE CONDUCT OF THE COURSES BY GETTING THE APPROVAL OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT, IN THE SAME BREATH, SUCH LACK OF COMPETENCE WOULD EQUALLY APPLY TO THE RUNNING OF TH E CENTERS AS WELL. 37. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY IS RECOGNIZED UNDER SECTION 2(F) OF THE UGC ACT AND GOVERNED BY THE PRO VISIONS OF THE UGC ACT. ALL THE UNIVERSITIES ARE DULY EMPOWERED TO RUN ALL COURSES OF EDUCATION AND AWARD ALL DEGREES TO ITS PASS OUT STU DENTS AFTER IMPARTING EDUCATION IN SUCH COURSES AS PER SECTION 22 OF THE UGC ACT THERE BEING NO REQUIREMENT TO TAKE APPROVAL FROM THE STATE LEGI SLATURE OR FROM ANY OTHER AUTHORITY. AS PER LAW, UGC ACT BEING A CENTRA L ACT HAS OVERRIDING EFFECT OVER INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS, IF ANY, OF THE STATE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, IT HAS BEEN SETTLED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI JUDGMENT (SUPRA) THAT THE STATE LEGISLA TURE HAS NO LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE TO MAKE ANY LAW WHICH IS INC ONSISTENT WITH THE UGC ACT AND THEREFORE, SECTION 4 AND ALL OTHER PROV ISIONS OF THE STATE ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 35 ACT WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE CENTRAL ACT ARE OVERRIDDEN BY THE UGC ACT AND THUS, WHOLLY IRRELEVANT. 38. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT REFERENCE TO SECTION 4 OF THE SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY PACHERI BARI (JHUNJHUNU) ACT, 2008 (UNI VERSITY ACT) IS MISPLACED AND NOT RELEVANT AS IT DEALS WITH UNDERTAKING OF RESEARCH AND STUDIES IN DISCIPLINES . THUS, IT SPEAKS OF DISCIPLINES AND NOT COURSES. REGARDING RUNNING OF COURSES THERE IS ANOTHER PROVISION I.E. SECTION 5(E) IN THE SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY ACT WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY MAY PROVIDE INSTRUCTIONS IN AL L SUCH COURSES AS IT MAY DETERMINE. SECTION 5(E) OF THE SINGHANIA UNIVER SITY ACT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 5. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY: THE UNIV ERSITY SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING POWERS AND FUNCTIONS, NAMELY: (E) TO PROVIDE INSTRUCTION, INCLUDING CORRESPONDENC E AND SUCH OTHER COURSES, AS IT MAY DETERMINE 39. IT IS FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT NO WORD S CAN BE ADDED OR DELETED FROM THE STATUTE AND LITERAL AND PLAIN INTE RPRETATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE. THUS, SECTI ON 4 CANNOT BE HELD TO BE REGARDING RUNNING OF COURSES AND IT IS SECTION 5 (E) THAT SPEAKS OF COURSES. RATHER, SECTION 5(E) EMPOWERS THE APPELLAN T UNIVERSITY TO RUN ALL SUCH COURSES AS IT MAY DETERMINE. FURTHER, SECT ION 4 SPEAKS ABOUT UNDERTAKING RESEARCH AND STUDIES AND NOT RUNNING OF COURSES WHICH ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT RUNN ING OF COURSES IS RELATED TO AWARDING OF DEGREES. REFERENCE IN THIS R EGARD MAY BE MADE TO SECTION 2(W) OF THE UNIVERSITY ACT WHICH PROVIDE S AS UNDER: 2. DEFINITIONS: ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 36 (W) STUDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY MEANS A PERSON ENRO LLED IN THE UNIVERSITY FOR TAKING A COURSE OF STUDY FOR A DEGREE, DIPLOMA OR OTHER ACADEMIC DISTINCTION DULY INSTITUT ED BY THE UNIVERSITY, INCLUDING A RESEARCH DEGREE THUS, THE AFORESAID MAKES IT AMPLY CLEAR THAT IT IS UPON THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY TO DETERMINE ALL SUCH COURSES THAT IT WO ULD WANT TO RUN AND AWARD DEGREES IN. 40. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY IS EMPOWERED UNDER THE UGC ACT AND THE SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY ACT TO IMPART EDUCATION AND AWARD DEGREES TO ITS PASS-OUT STUDENTS IN ALL C OURSES OF EDUCATION, INCLUDING MEDICAL COURSES, ESTABLISH SPECIALIZED LA BORATORIES OR OTHER UNITS FOR RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTIONS, AND DO ALL SUC H ACTS AS MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THE OBJECT OF EDUCATION. REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD MAY BE MADE TO SECTIONS 5(B), 5(E), 5(J) AND 5(Z) OF THE S INGHANIA UNIVERSITY ACT WHICH PROVIDE FOR THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF T HE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY AS UNDER: 5. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY- THE UNIVERSITY SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING POWERS AND FUNCTIONS, NAMELY- 5(B) TO GRANT, SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS AS THE UN IVERSITY MAY DETERMINE, DIPLOMAS OR CERTIFICATE, AND CONFER DEGREES OR OTHER ACADEMIC DISTINCTIONS ON THE BASIS OF EXAMINATIONS, EVALUATION OR ANY OTHER METHOD OF TESTING ON PERSONS, AND TO WITHDRAW ANY SUCH DIPLOMAS, CERTIFICATES, DEGREES OR OTHER ACADEMIC DISTINCTIONS FOR GOOD AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE; 5(E) TO PROVIDE INSTRUCTIONS, INCLUDING CORRESPOND ENCE AND SUCH OTHER COURSES, AS IT MAY DETERMINE; ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 37 5(J) TO ESTABLISH STUDY CENTERS AND MAINTAIN SCHOOL S, INSTITUTIONS AND SUCH CENTERS, SPECIALIZED LABORATO RIES OR OTHER UNITS FOR RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTIONS AS ARE IN THE OPINION OF THE UNIVERSITY, NECESSARY FOR THE FURTHERANCE OF ITS OBJECT; 5(Z) TO DO ALL SUCH OTHER ACTS AND THINGS AS MAY BE NECESSARY, INCIDENTAL OR CONDUCIVE TO THE ATTAINMEN T OF ALL OR ANY OF THE OBJECTS OF THE UNIVERSITY. 41. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY, BEING A UNIVERSITY ESTABLISHED UNDER THE STATE ACT, IS ESTABLISHED FOR THE SOLE OBJECT OF EDUCATION. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY IS UNDERTAKING ANY ACTIVITY OTHER THAN EDUCATION. IT I S SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS BEEN HELD IN A CATENA OF JUDGMENTS THAT SO LONG AS THE UNIVERSITY IS IMPARTING EDUCATION AND ITS EXISTENCE IS NOT FOR PR OFIT ONLY, IT IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI). REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD MAY BE MADE TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF QUEENS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY V. CIT REPORTED IN 372 ITR 699 (SC). WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 24. THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DOES NOT CONDITION T HE GRANT OF AN EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) ON THE REQUIR EMENT THAT A COLLEGE MUST MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO, AS IT WERE, IN REGARD TO ITS KNOWLEDGE BASED INFRASTRUCTURE. NOR FOR THAT MA TTER IS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION PROHIBITED FROM UPGRADING I TS INFRASTRUCTURE ON EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES SAVE ON TH E PAIN OF LOSING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C). IMP OSING SUCH A CONDITION WHICH IS NOT CONTAINED IN THE STATUTE WOU LD LEAD TO PERVERSION OF THE BASIC PURPOSE FOR WHICH SUCH EXEM PTION HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. KNOWLEDGE IN CONTEMPORARY TIMES IS TECHNOLOGY DRIVEN. EDUCATIONA L INSTITUTIONS HAVE TO MODERNIZE, UPGRADE AND RESPOND TO THE CHANG ING ETHOS OF EDUCATION. EDUCATION HAS TO BE RESPONSIVE TO A R APIDLY EVOLVING SOCIETY. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(23C) CANNOT B E INTERPRETED REGRESSIVELY TO DENY EXEMPTIONS. SO LONG AS THE INS TITUTION EXISTS ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 38 SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PROFIT, THE TEST IS MET. 42. REFERENCE WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRES S V. CIT, (2001) 3 SCC 359 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE COURT HELD THAT IN CASE OF A UNIVERSITY, THE CONDITION REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED FOR EXEMPTION UN DER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) (EARLIER SECTION 10(22)) IS THAT THE UN IVERSITY SHOULD IMPARTING EDUCATION IN INDIA AND SHOULD BE EXISTING AS NOT FOR PROFIT ONLY. THUS, WHEN IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE APPE LLANT UNIVERSITY IS IMPARTING EDUCATION AND EXISTING AS NOT FOR PROFIT ONLY, THEN THE REQUIRED TEST UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) IS MET AND THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR DENYING THE EXEMPTION TO THE APPELLANT UN IVERSITY. 43. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF CHIEF COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. GEETANJALI UNIVERSITY TRUST REPORTED IN REPORTED IN (2011) 16 TAXMANN.COM 274, THE DIVISION BENCH OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT A PLAIN READING OF SECTION 10(23C)(VI) RE VEALS THAT WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) IS THAT THE UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITU TION SHOULD EXIST 'SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PR OFIT. THEREFORE, VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE PRESCRIBED RULES IN RUNNING OF THE COURSES CANNOT LEAD TO THE INSTITUTE LOSING THE CHARACTER AS AN EN TITY EXISTING SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION AND THE INSTITUTE IS ENTIT LED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI). THUS, THE CIT(E) HAS FAI LED TO APPLY THE CORRECT TEST UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) AS IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 39 APPELLANT UNIVERSITY IS NOT DOING ANY ACTIVITY OTHE R THAN EDUCATION AND THAT IT IS EXISTING NOT FOR PURPOSE OF PROFIT. 44. REGARDING THE OBJECTION OF THE CIT(E) IN THE OR DER DATED 14.09.2016 THAT WHY THERE IS DIFFERENT FIGURE IN TH E CORRECT FORM 10BB FILED BY THE AUDITOR THAN THE FIGURE GIVEN IN THE E ARLIER WRONG FORM 10B FILED BY THE AUDITOR, IT WAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: I. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE AUDITOR HAD INADVERTENTLY FILED THE AUDIT REPORT ON WRONG FORM 10B WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO AN ASSESSEE AVAILING BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. DURING ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OF FICER REQUIRED THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY TO ASK THE AUDITO R TO REFILE THE AUDIT REPORT IN THE CORRECT FORM 10BB AND THE A UDITOR FILED THE CORRECT AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10BB AS PER SECTION 10(23C). II. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE FIGURE OF RS.1,61,05,529/- SHOWN AS ACCUMULATION IN COLUMN NO.11 OF THE FORM 10BB IS GI VEN AFTER PROPER AND CORRECT CALCULATION AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 10(23C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THE FIGUR E IS CALCULATED AS UNDER: S. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1. TOTAL RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RS.21,44,86,849/- 2. AMOUNT OF RECEIPTS OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR APPLIED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RS.16,62,08,293/- ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 40 3. AMOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF 15% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS = 15% OF RS.21,44,86,849/- RS.3,21,73,027/- 4. AMOUNT OF RECEIPTS EXCEEDING 15%, ACCUMULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CLAUSE (A) OF THE THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 10(23C) RS.1,61,05,529/- III. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, THE LD. DR ACC EPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY IN THIS REGARD AND SUBMITTED THAT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE CIT(E) IN T HIS REGARD WAS THAT NO EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN EARLIER WH ICH HAS BEEN SATISFIED NOW. 45. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT/DR RE LYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI CASE (SUPRA) S UBMITTED THAT THE APEX COURT HAS SETTLED THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENT HA S NO POWER TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON THE UNIVERSITY AND IT IS THE UGC THAT HAS THE POWER. THE LD. DR THEN PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGM ENT DATED 04.12.2015 OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF SAM HIGGINBOTTOM UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE V. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, W.P.(C) NO.486/2015 T O SUBMIT THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID CASE HAD HELD THAT S AM HIGGINBOTTOM UNIVERSITY REQUIRED UGC APPROVAL BEFORE STARTING CO URSES AND THEREFORE, BY SAME LOGIC, THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY ALSO REQUIR ES APPROVAL OF UGC. THUS, THE LD. CIT/DR ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY THAT STATE GOVERNMENT CANNOT PLACE ANY R ESTRICTION AND THAT REFERENCE TO SECTION 4 HAS NO RELEVANCE. ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 41 46. REGARDING THE CONTENTION OF LD CIT/DR THAT PRIO R APPROVAL OF UGC IS REQUIRED, REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO PARAGRAPHS 9 AND 14 OF THE SAME JUDGMENT I.E. SAM HIGGINBOTTOM CASE (SUPRA) WHEREIN CLEAR DISTINCTION HAS BEEN MADE BETWEEN A UNIVERSITY ESTABLISHED UNDE R THE STATE ACT AND A DEEMED UNIVERSITY AND IT IS ADMITTED BY UGC I TSELF THAT A UNIVERSITY ESTABLISHED BY STATE ACT DOES NOT REQUIR E APPROVAL OF UGC FOR SETTING UP A NEW DEPARTMENT OR COMMENCING A NEW COU RSES. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE JUDGMENT IS REPRODUCED FOR READY REFERENCE: 9. WE HAD DURING THE HEARING ENQUIRED FROM THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT UGC WHETHER THE UGC INSISTS UPON A UNIVERSITY AS DISTINCT FROM A DEEMED UNIVERSITY TO SEEK PRIOR APPROVAL BEFORE COMMENCING A NEW COURSE/ DEPARTMENT/ PROGRAMME. THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT UGC RESPONDED THAT THE UGC DOES NOT, IF THE NEW COURSE/ PROGRAMME OR DEPARTMENT IS WITHIN THE CONFINED OF SECTION 22. 14. THE COUNSEL FOR UGC HAS ADMITTED, AS AFORESAID , THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR A UNIVERSITY ESTABLISHE D BY A CENTRAL/ PROVINCIAL/ STATE ACT TO SEEK PRIOR APPROVAL OF UGC FOR SETTING UP A NEW DEPARTMENT OR COMMENCING A NEW COURSE TO CONFER DEGREES SPECIFIED IN NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 22( 3). 47. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO SECTION 2(F) AND SECTION 3 OF THE UGC ACT WHICH DEFINES TWO SEPARATE CATEGORIES OF UNIVERSITIES. ONE CATEGORY UNDER SECTION 2(F) OF TH E UGC ACT CONSISTS OF THOSE UNIVERSITIES THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED UNDER A CENTRAL, PROVINCIAL OR A STATE ACT I.E. LIKE THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY W HICH IS ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE ACT VIZ. SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY ACT; THE SE COND CATEGORY UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE UGC ACT CONSISTS OF INSTITUTIONS T HAT ARE NOT STATUTORY ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 42 BODIES BUT THEIR STATUS HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO BE DEE MED TO BE A UNIVERSITY I.E. LIKE THE SAM HIGGINBOTTOM UNIVERSIT Y, A DEEMED UNIVERSITY. THUS, BOTH ARE TWO DIFFERENT AND DISTIN CT CLASSES. REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO PARAGRAPH 1OF THE SAM HIGGINBOTTOM C ASE (SUPRA). THE FINDING OF THE HON'BLE COURT THAT PRIOR APPROVA L OF UGC IS REQUIRED FOR RUNNING COURSES APPLIES TO DEEMED UNIVERSITIES. REGARDING THE UNIVERSITIES WHICH HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY A STATE ACT, SUCH AS THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY, THE POSITION IS VERY CLEAR TH AT NO PRIOR APPROVAL OF UGC IS REQUIRED AND SUCH UNIVERSITY CAN RUN ALL COU RSES AS PER SECTION 22 OF THE UGC ACT. THUS, BY LD. DRS OWN SUBMISSION S, THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITYS CASE IS PROVED AND IT IS SETTLED THAT THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY DOES NOT REQUIRE EITHER THE PERMISSION OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT OR THE UGC FOR RUNNING OF COURSES. AS SUBMITTED ABOVE, APP ELLANT UNIVERSITY IS AN AUTONOMOUS, SELF-REGULATED, STATUTORY BODY ESTAB LISHED BY STATE ACT WITH THE SOLE OBJECT OF EDUCATION AND EMPOWERED TO IMPART EDUCATION IN ALL COURSES OF EDUCATION. 48. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING, IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN RUNNING THE HOSPITAL IN A SMALL PORTION OF THE OLD ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK BUILDING SINCE 2015 AN D NEITHER THE HOSPITAL NOR THE MEDICAL COURSES WERE RUNNING IN THE A.Y 201 3-14 OR IN A.Y 2014-15 AND A.Y 2015-16. THUS, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD AND THERE IS NO BASIS WHATSOEVER FOR WITHDRAWING THE EXEMPTION F ROM THE A.Y 2013- 14 ONWARDS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID TEACHING HOSPITAL IS COMPLETELY NON-COMMERCIAL AND THERE ARE NO EARNINGS FROM THE OPERATION OF THE SAID HOSPITAL. AS SUCH, IT IS A TE ACHING HOSPITAL WITH THE SOLE OBJECT OF PROVIDING TEACHING AND TRAINING TO T HE STUDENTS IN MEDICAL ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 43 COURSES SUCH AS NURSING, PARAMEDICAL ETC. AND ALSO TAKING CARE OF GENERAL HEALTHCARE AND WELLNESS OF THE STUDENTS AND STAFF OF THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY. IT IS IMPORTANT TO SUBMIT THA T THIS IS NOT EVEN THE CASE OF THE CIT(E) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.0 9.2016 THAT THE HOSPITAL WAS BEING RUN BY THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE OR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TEACHING AND TAKI NG CARE OF THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE STUDENTS AND STAFF OF THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY. 49. IT WAS FINALLY SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUNDS ON WH ICH THE EXEMPTION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN I.E. IN THE OPERATIVE PART OF TH E IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(E) I.E. (PARA 9) THAT THE SOCIETY MUST EXIST SO LELY FOR EDUCATION, IS VIOLATED AND SOME COURSES ARE BEING RUN WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF STATE LEGISLATURE FOR WHICH EXEMPTION HAS NOT BEEN GRANTE D UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) AND ACTIVITIES ARE NOT GENUINE, ARE WIT HOUT ANY BASIS AS SUBMITTED HEREINABOVE. THERE IS NO SUCH LAW WHICH P ROVIDES THAT A UNIVERSITY RECOGNISED UNDER SECTION 2(F) OF THE UGC ACT REQUIRES STATE LEGISLATURE APPROVAL TO RUN COURSES LIKEWISE, EXEMP TION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) IS ALSO GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT UNIVER SITY BECAUSE IT IS A UNIVERSITY ESTABLISHED BY A STATE ACT FOR THE SOLE OBJECT OF EDUCATION AND IT CONTINUES TO EXISTS FOR SOLE OBJECT OF EDUCA TION AND NOT FOR PROFIT. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.09.2016 IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, AGAINST LAW, BA SED ON IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS AND MAY BE QUASHED AND THE EXEMPTION OF THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT MAY BE RESTORED. 50. NOW, COMING TO THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE LD CIT DR. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD CIT DR THAT THE LD AR HAS CONTE NDED THAT APPROVAL ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 44 U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN GRANTED TO IT BECAUSE OF ITS STATUS OF BEING A UNIVERSITY, AS IT WAS ESTABLISHED BY A N ACT OF STATE LEGISLATURE AND SO LONG, IT IS IMPARTING EDUCATION AND ITS EXISTENCE IS NOT FOR PROFIT ONLY, IT IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 1 0(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF V ISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY VS ACIT [2016] 68 TAXMANN. COM 287 (SC), THE ASSESSEE-UNIVERSITY HAD BEEN CONSTITUTED UNDER THE VISVESWARAIAH TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY ACT, 1994 ('VTU ACT') AND THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE APEX COURT WAS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE UNIVERS ITY WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(23)(IIIAB) OF THE ACT. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT THAT THE ENTITLEMENT FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAB) IS SUBJECT TO TWO CONDITIONS. FIRSTL Y THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR THE UNIVERSITY MUST BE SOLELY FOR TH E PURPOSE OF EDUCATION AND WITHOUT ANY PROFIT MOTIVE. SECONDLY, IT MUST BE WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT. BOTH COND ITIONS WILL HAVE TO BE SATISFIED BEFORE EXEMPTION CAN BE GRANTED UNDER THE AFORESAID PROVISION OF THE ACT. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER HELD THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY DOES NOT SATISFY THE SECOND REQUIREMENT SPELT OUT BY SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAB) OF THE ACT, AS IT IS NEITHER DIRECTL Y NOR EVEN SUBSTANTIALLY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT SO AS TO BE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF TAX UNDER THE ACT. THUS, IT IS EVIDENT F ROM THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT THAT THE APPROVAL U /S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT IS NOT GRANTED TO A UNIVERSITY AS SUCH ON A CCOUNT OF ITS STATUS, BEING ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ACT OF STATE LEGISLATUR E, AS CLAIMED BY THE LD AR. THE EXEMPTION IS GRANTED ONLY AS LONG AS THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY FULFILL THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN THAT SECTION. ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 45 51. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD CIT DR THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(VI) WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESS EE UNIVERSITY ON THE BASIS OF ITS OBJECT FILED AT THE TIME OF GRANT OF APPROVAL AND ACCORDING TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY CAN IMPA RT EDUCATION IN THE VARIOUS FIELDS AS STATED IN SCHEDULE II OF THE GAZE TTE NOTIFICATION, AS REPRODUCED ON PAGE 9 TO 11 OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT( E). THIS IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE VARIOUS COURSES AS APPEARI NG ON PAGE 6 OF ORDER OF LD CIT(E) WERE STARTED BY THE ASSESSEE UNI VERSITY WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY MENTION OF THE SAME IN SCHEDULE II AND WI THOUT SEEKING ANY APPROVAL FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT AS STIPULATED IN SECTION 4 OF THE SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY ACT, THROUGH WHICH THE ASSESSE E UNIVERSITY WAS ESTABLISHED. 52. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD CIT DR THAT THE LD A R HAS RELIED UPON THE CASE OF MAHRISHI MAHESH YOGI AND OTHER JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION THAT SINCE IT IS A UNIVERSIT Y ESTABLISHED BY LAW, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO OBTAIN ANY PERMISS ION FROM ANY AUTHORITY FOR ESTABLISHING A MEDICAL INSTITUTION OR FOR START ING A NEW COURSE OF STUDY MEDICINE ETC. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR ARE REL ATED TO TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS PROVIDING TECHNICAL EDUCATION, WHICH A RE REGULATED BY ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION ACT, 1987 (AI CTE ACT). 53. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT IN THE CASE OF BHARATH IDASAN UNIVERSITY & ORS. VS AICTE AIR 2001 SC 2861, AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD AR, THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBE APEX COURT WAS THAT: WHETHER THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY CREATED UNDER THE BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY ACT, 1981 SHOULD SEEK PRIO R APPROVAL ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 46 OF AICTE TO START A DEPARTMENT FOR IMPARTING A COUR SE OR PROGRAMME IN TECHNICAL EDUCATION OR A TECHNICAL INS TITUTION AS AN ADJUNCT TO THE UNIVERSITY ITSELF TO CONDUCT TECH NICAL COURSES OF ITS CHOICE AND SELECTION? THE HONBLE APEX COURT AFTER ANALYZING THE PROVISIO NS OF AICTE ACT HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE SAID ACT HAS MADE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A UNIVERSITY AND A TECHNICAL INSTITUTION. THE HON BLE APEX COURT HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE REGULATIONS MADE BY THE AICTE UN DER SECTION 10(1)(K) OF AICTE ACT REQUIRING A UNIVERSITY ALSO T O SEEK ITS PRIOR APPROVAL FOR STARTING A NEW PROGRAMME OR COURSE IN TECHNICAL EDUCATION CANNOT BE ENFORCED AGAINST A UNIVERSITY AS IT IS NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF AICTE ACT. 54. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO STARTED MD (DOCTOR OF MEDICINE) COURSES, WHICH IS COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF INDIAN MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT, 1956 (IMC ACT). FURTHER, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A OF IMC ACT SPECIFICALLY P ROHIBIT ESTABLISHMENT OF AN MEDICAL INSTITUTION OR STARTING OF A NEW COUR SE OF STUDY WITHOUT THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. I T IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A OF IMC ACT THAT THI S SECTION HAS OVERRIDING EFFECT NOT ONLY ON THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF IMC ACT BUT ALSO ON OTHER ACTS FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE. FURTHER, AS PER SECTION 10A(1) OF IMC ACT, NO PERSON SHALL ESTABLISH A MEDICAL COLLEG E EXCEPT WITH THE PREVIOUS PERMISSION OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OBTAI NED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A(1) OF IMC ACT. H ERE, IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT ACCORDING TO EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTIO N 10A, 'PERSON' INCLUDES ANY UNIVERSITY OR A TRUST BUT DOES NOT INC LUDE THE CENTRAL ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 47 GOVERNMENT. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO MENTION HERE THAT AS PER SECTION 2(M) OF IMC ACT, 'UNIVERSITY' MEANS ANY UNI VERSITY IN INDIA ESTABLISHED BY LAW AND HAVING A MEDICAL FACULTY. SI NCE THE SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY IS CREATED BY LAW, THEREFORE, IT IS COVE RED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF UNIVERSITY AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(M) OF IMC A CT AND CONSEQUENTLY, IT FALLS UNDER EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 10A OF IMC ACT I.E. IT IS A PERSON AND THUS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A OF IMC ACT ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO IT FOR ESTABLISHING A NEW MEDICAL INSTITUTION OR FOR STARTING A NEW STUDY COURSE ETC. I.E. IT IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A P ERMISSION FROM THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FOR ESTABLISHING A MEDICAL INSTI TUTION OR STARTING A NEW STUDY COURSE ETC. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT A PU BLIC NOTICE WAS PUBLISHED WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE UNIVE RSITY HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY MCI FOR STARTING MEDICAL COURSES. THUS, IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT CONDUCTING NEW COURSES IN DISCIPLINE S NOT COVERED BY SCHEDULE II OF THE SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY ACT, ESPECI ALLY IN THE FIELD OF MEDICAL COURSES WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJ ECTS FOR WHICH EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(VI) WAS GRANTED AND THE ACTIV ITIES OF THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY WERE NOT GENUINE. 55. REFERRING TO THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(E), THE LD CIT/DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(E) WAS WELL WITHIN HIS RI GHTS IN WITHDRAWING THE EXEMPTION GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY. THE LD CIT/DR ALSO TOOK US THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SINGHANIA UNIVERS ITY ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY IS CONDUCTI NG COURSES WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THE LD. CIT/ DR REFERRING TO THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(E) HAS SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY IS APPROVED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE, CE RTAIN FRAMEWORK OF RULES ARE TO BE OBSERVED IN VERBATIM AND IF ANY AME NDMENT IS REQUIRED ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 48 THEN IT HAS TO GO TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. ALTHO UGH, THE UNIVERSITY IS AN AUTONOMOUS BODY YET IT IS ALWAYS REGULATED THROU GH THE CLAUSES OF THE RESPECTIVE ACT PASSED BY LEGISLATURE FOR ITS EN ACTMENT AND IT CANNOT PERFORM ANY ACTIVITY BEYOND ITS RESPECTIVE ACT. IT IS NOT ONLY THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT BUT THE AP PROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS ALSO GRANTED BASE D ON THE OBJECTS PRESENTED BEFORE THE PRESCRIBED ACTIVITY. ANY DEPAR TURE FROM THE APPROVED OBJECTS NEEDS PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE PRESCR IBED AUTHORITY AND IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY HAS VI OLATED THE REGULATIONS LAID DOWN IN THE ACT BEYOND ITS APPROVED OBJECTS, WHICH WERE DEFINITELY THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPROVAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 10( 23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO THE OBJECTS OF THE UNIVERSITY AND THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 29.03.2008 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN, TH E LD. CIT/DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY IS APPROVED TO UNDERTAKE COURSES AS PER SCHEDULED-II OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT AN OPEN ENDED SCHEDULE AND INCLUSIVE IN NATU RE. RATHER ALL THE COURSES WHICH THE UNIVERSITY CAN CONDUCT HAS BEEN S PECIFICALLY LISTED AND AS PER APPROVAL GRANTED, THE UNIVERSITY CAN CON DUCT ONLY THE COURSES LISTED IN THE SCHEDULE-II, HOWEVER, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE UNIVERSITY IS CONDUCTIN G COURSES WHICH ARE NOT LISTED IN SCHEDULE-II. AND SOME OF THESE COURSE S ARE B.ED., M.ED., ANM, GNM, M.D. (DOCTOR OF MEDICINE), PUBLIC HEALTH, PHARMCEUTICAL, MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY AND PHYSIOTHERAPY. 56. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD CIT/DR THAT THE UNIV ERSITY IS CONDUCTING THE COURSES WHICH ARE NOT AS PER ITS OBJ ECTS AND THE SAID SCHEDULE IS NOT A STANDARDISED SCHEDULE AND IS SPEC IFIC TO EACH ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 49 APPROVED UNIVERSITY AND THEY HAVE TO GIVE THE LIST OF THE COURSES PROPOSED TO BE RUN BY IT. ANY CHANGE IN THE SCHEDUL E NEEDS PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. IT WAS ACCORD INGLY SUBMITTED THAT AS PER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT, THE APPROVED ORGANISATION NEEDS TO CARRY OUT ACTIVITIES AS PER THE OBJECTS ONLY AND ANY ACTIVITIES BEYOND ITS OBJECTS RENDERS THE ACTIVITIES AS NON GENUINE A ND AS THE UNIVERSITY IS CONDUCTING THE COURSES BEYOND ITS OBJECTS, ITS ACTI VITIES CANNOT BE HELD AS GENUINE CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. 57. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. CIT/DR THAT THE UNIVERSITY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATI ON PURPOSE AS IT IS ALSO RUNNING A HOSPITAL AND A NUMBER OF EVIDENCES S UCH AS COPY OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT WHERE EXPENSE HAS BE EN BOOKED ON ACCOUNT OF HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION, PURCHASE OF HOSPI TAL EQUIPMENTS, FIELD ENQUIRY REPORT OF TEHSHILDAR/ SDM WERE COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE FACT OF RUNNING OF THE HOSPITAL IS ALSO NOT CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEES S OCIETY. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY THAT THE HOSPITAL IS REQ UIRED TO BE MAINTAINED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE TRAINING AND PRACTICAL EXPERIEN CE TO THE STUDENTS ENROLLED IN MEDICAL COURSES WAS ALSO NOT FOUND TENA BLE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. CIT/DR THAT THE COURSES FOR WH ICH THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY HAS MENTIONED THE PRE-REQUIREMENT OF HOS PITAL SETUP ARE THE COURSES FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY IS NOT EN TITLED TO RUN AND THESE ARE ALSO NOT PART OF THE OBJECTS WHICH WERE A PPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. 58. THE LD. CIT/DR HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THEY WERE OTHER DISCREPANCIES ALSO WHICH WERE NOTICED BY THE LD. CI T(E) SUCH AS NON- ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 50 MAINTENANCE OF STUDENT ATTENDANCE REGISTER AND THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ACTUAL CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES, IN ABSENCE OF WHICH IT CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED WHETHER INCOME IS BEING APPLI ED FOR THE STATED OBJECTS OR NOT. FURTHER, CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTICED IN FORM 10BB REGARDING ACCUMULATION OF THE FUNDS UNDER SECTION 1 1(2) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION IN THAT REGARD AND OUR REFERENCE WAS DRAWN TO THE CONTENTS OF PARA 9 AND 1 0 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(E) WHEREIN HE HAS FINALLY CONCLUDED HIS OBSERVATIONS WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 9 IN THE CASE OF APPLICANT THE CONDITION MENTIONED IN THE CLAUSE (VI) OF SEC. 10(23C)(VI) THAT THE SOCIETY MUST EXIS TS SOLELY FOR EDUCATION IS VIOLATED AND ALSO THE UNIVERSITY HAS N OT CARRIED OUT THE ACTIVITIES AS PER THE OBJECTS BY RUNNING COURSE S BEYOND ITS OBJECTS AND APPROVED BY STATE LEGISLATURE AS WELL A S PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY US 10(23C)(VI). THEREFORE ITS ACTIVITIES CANNOT BE HELD AS GENUINE CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. THEREFORE, THE PROVI SO 13 TH OF SEC. 10(23C)(VI) IS ATTRACTED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCU SSION MADE ABOVE, EXERCISING THE POWER GIVEN UNDER THE ABOVE S AID PROVISO, IT IS HELD THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT GENUINE AS BEING CARRIED OUT BEYOND THE APPROVED OBJECTS AND I T IS NOT AN EDUCATION INSTITUTION WHICH IS EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATION PURPOSES, THEREFORE, EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(VI) GRAN TED EARLIER VIDE NOTIFICATION NO. 01/2008-09 DATED 04.04.2008 I S HEREBY WITHDRAWN. 10. DATE OF WITHDRAWAL OF EXEMPTION:- IN THIS CASE, THE CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) WE RE VIOLATED ON ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 51 START OF HOSPITAL. FROM THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS SEEN THAT THE HOSPITAL ACTIVITIES (C ONSTRUCTION OF HOSPITAL, HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT PURCHASE ETC) WERE STA RTED DURING F.Y. 2012-13 ONWARDS. CONSIDERING THIS, THE EXEMPTI ON U/S 10(23C)(VI) IS WITHDRAWN FROM A.Y. 2013-14 & ONWARD S. 59. THE LD. CIT/DR FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE J UDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAM HIGGINB OTTOM UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE V. UNIVERSITY GRA NTS COMMISSION, (W.P.(C) NO.486/2015 DATED 04.12.2015 ) TO SUBMIT THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID CASE HAD HELD THAT SAM HIGGI NBOTTOM UNIVERSITY REQUIRED UGC APPROVAL BEFORE STARTING COURSES AND A PPLYING THE SAME REASONING, THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY ALSO REQUIRES A PPROVAL OF UGC AND WHICH HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMIT TED THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMINITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(E) WITHDR AWING THE EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY AND THE SAME BE UPHELD. 60. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE RI VAL CONTENTIONS, WE REFER TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF T HE ACT WHICH READ AS UNDER: 10. IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF A PREVIOUS YE AR OF ANY PERSON, ANY INCOME FALLING WITHIN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CLAU SES SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED: (23C) ANY INCOME RECEIVED BY ANY PERSON ON BEHALF O F (VI) ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXI STING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PURPOSE S OF ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 52 PROFIT, OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN SUB- CLAUSE (IIIAB) OR SUB-CLAUSE (IIIAD) AND WHICH MAY BE APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY; OR PROVIDED THAT THE FUND OR TRUST OR INSTITUTION 87 [OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION] REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (IV) OR SUB- CLAUSE (V) 87 [OR SUB-CLAUSE (VI) OR SUB-CLAUSE (VIA)] SHALL MAKE AN APPLICATION IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM 88 AND MANNER TO THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY 89 FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANT OF THE EXEMPTION, OR CONTI NUANCE THEREOF, UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (IV) OR SUB-CLAUSE (V) 90 [OR SUB-CLAUSE (VI) OR SUB-CLAUSE (VIA)] : 91 [PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, BE FORE APPROVING ANY FUND OR TRUST OR INSTITUTION OR ANY U NIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OT HER MEDICAL INSTITUTION, UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (IV) OR SUB-CLAUSE (V ) OR SUB-CLAUSE (VI) OR SUB-CLAUSE (VIA), MAY CALL FOR SUCH DOCUMEN TS (INCLUDING AUDITED ANNUAL ACCOUNTS) OR INFORMATION FROM THE FU ND OR TRUST OR INSTITUTION OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AS IT THINKS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO SATISFY ITSELF ABOUT T HE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF SUCH FUND OR TRUST OR INSTITUT ION OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND THE PR ESCRIBED AUTHORITY MAY ALSO MAKE SUCH INQUIRIES AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY IN THIS BEHALF:] PROVIDED ALSO THAT THE FUND OR TRUST OR INSTITUTION 92 [OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION 93 OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION] REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUS E (IV) OR SUB- CLAUSE (V) 92 [OR SUB-CLAUSE (VI) OR SUB-CLAUSE (VIA)] 94 [(A ) APPLIES ITS INCOME, OR ACCUMULATES IT FOR APPLICATI ON, WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY TO THE OBJECTS FOR WHICH IT IS ESTABLIS HED AND IN A CASE WHERE MORE THAN FIFTEEN PER CENT OF ITS INCOME I S ACCUMULATED ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2002, THE PERIOD OF THE ACCUMULATION OF THE AMOUNT EXCEEDING FIFTEEN PE R CENT OF ITS INCOME SHALL IN NO CASE EXCEED FIVE YEARS; AND] ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 53 95 [(B ) DOES NOT INVEST OR DEPOSIT ITS FUNDS, OTHER THAN (I ) ANY ASSETS HELD BY THE FUND, TRUST OR INSTITUTION 96 [OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION 97 OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION] WHE RE SUCH ASSETS FORM PART OF THE CORPUS OF THE FUND, TRUST OR INSTI TUTION 98 [OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION] AS ON TH E 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 1973; 99 [(IA ) ANY ASSET, BEING EQUITY SHARES OF A PUBLIC COMPANY, HELD BY ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION WHERE SUCH AS SETS FORM PART OF THE CORPUS OF ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER E DUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MED ICAL INSTITUTION AS ON THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 1998;] (II ) ANY ASSETS (BEING DEBENTURES ISSUED BY, OR ON BEHAL F OF, ANY COMPANY OR CORPORATION), ACQUIRED BY THE FUND, TRUST OR INSTITUTION 1 [OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION 2 OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION] BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 1983; (III ) ANY ACCRETION TO THE SHARES, FORMING PART OF THE CO RPUS MENTIONED IN SUB-CLAUSE (I) 3 [AND SUB-CLAUSE (IA )], BY WAY OF BONUS SHARES ALLOTTED TO THE FUND, TRUST OR INSTITUTION 4 [OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTIT UTION] ; (IV ) VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED AND MAINTAINED IN THE FORM OF JEWELLERY, FURNITURE OR ANY OTHER ARTICLE A S THE BOARD MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, SPECIFY, FOR ANY PERIOD DURING THE PREVIOUS Y EAR OTHERWISE THAN IN ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FORMS OR MODES SPECIFIED IN SUB- SECTION (5) OF ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 54 SECTION 11:] PROVIDED ALSO THAT THE EXEMPTION UNDER SUB-CLAUSE ( IV) OR SUB- CLAUSE (V) SHALL NOT BE DENIED IN RELATION TO ANY F UNDS INVESTED OR DEPOSITED BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1989, OTHERW ISE THAN IN ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FORMS OR MODES SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 11 IF SUCH FUNDS DO NOT CONTINUE TO REMAIN SO INVESTED OR DEPOSITED AFTER THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 5 [1993] : 6 [PROVIDED ALSO THAT THE EXEMPTION UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (VI) OR SUB- CLAUSE (VIA) SHALL NOT BE DENIED IN RELATION TO ANY FUNDS INVESTED OR DEPOSITED BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 1998, OTHE RWISE THAN IN ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FORMS OR MODES SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 11 IF SUCH FUNDS DO NOT CONTINUE TO REMAIN SO INVESTED OR DEPOSITED AFTER THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2001:] 7 [PROVIDED ALSO THAT THE EXEMPTION UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (IV) OR SUB- CLAUSE (V) 6 [OR SUB-CLAUSE (VI) OR SUB-CLAUSE (VIA)] SHALL NOT BE DENIED IN RELATION TO VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION, OTHER THAN VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION IN CASH OR VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION OF T HE NATURE REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) OF THE THIRD PROVISO TO T HIS SUB-CLAUSE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT SUCH VOLUNTARY CONTRI BUTION IS NOT HELD BY THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION 8 [OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER ME DICAL INSTITUTION], OTHERWISE THAN IN ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FORMS OR MODES SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 11, A FTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WH ICH SUCH ASSET IS ACQUIRED OR THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 1992, W HICHEVER IS LATER:] PROVIDED ALSO THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-CLAUSE (IV) OR SUB- CLAUSE (V) 9 [OR SUB-CLAUSE (VI) OR SUB-CLAUSE (VIA)] SHALL APPL Y IN RELATION TO ANY INCOME OF THE FUND OR TRUST OR INST ITUTION 9 [OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION], BEING PROFITS AND GAINS OF BU SINESS, UNLESS THE BUSINESS IS INCIDENTAL TO THE ATTAINMENT OF ITS OBJECTIVES AND SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MAINTAINED BY IT IN R ESPECT OF SUCH BUSINESS: ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 55 PROVIDED ALSO THAT ANY 10 [NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (IV) OR SUB-CLAUSE (V), BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2 006 RECEIVES THE ASSENT OF THE PRESIDENT * , SHALL, AT ANY ONE TIME 11 , HAVE EFFECT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS, NOT EXCEEDING THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS] (INCLUDING AN ASSESSMENT YE AR OR YEARS COMMENCING BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH NOTIFICATI ON IS ISSUED) AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTIFICATION:] 12 [PROVIDED ALSO THAT WHERE AN APPLICATION UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO IS MADE ON OR AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2006 RECEIVES THE ASSENT OF THE P RESIDENT, * EVERY NOTIFICATION UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (IV) OR SUB-CLA USE (V) SHALL BE ISSUED OR APPROVAL UNDER 13 [SUB-CLAUSE (IV) OR SUB-CLAUSE (V) OR] SUB-CLAUSE (VI) OR SUB-CLAUSE (VIA) SHALL BE GRANTE D OR AN ORDER REJECTING THE APPLICATION SHALL BE PASSED WITHIN TH E PERIOD OF TWELVE MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH SU CH APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED: PROVIDED ALSO THAT WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME, OF THE F UND OR TRUST OR INSTITUTION OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION REFERRED TO I N SUB-CLAUSE (IV) OR SUB-CLAUSE (V) OR SUB-CLAUSE (VI) OR SUB-CLAUSE (VIA), WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID SUB-CLA USES, EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX I N ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION OR ANY UNI VERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER ME DICAL INSTITUTION SHALL GET ITS ACCOUNTS AUDITED IN RESPECT OF THAT Y EAR BY AN ACCOUNTANT AS DEFINED IN THE EXPLANATION BELOW SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 288 AND FURNISH ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE REPORT OF SUCH AU DIT IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM 14 DULY SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY SUCH ACCOUNTANT AND SETTING FORTH SUCH PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCR IBED:] 15 [PROVIDED ALSO THAT ANY AMOUNT OF DONATION RECEIVED BY THE FUND OR INSTITUTION IN TERMS OF CLAUSE (D) OF SUB-S ECTION (2) OF SECTION 80G 16 [IN RESPECT OF WHICH ACCOUNTS OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE HAVE NOT BEEN RENDERED TO THE AUTHORITY PRESCRIBED UNDER CLAUSE (V) OF SUB-SECTION (5C) OF THAT SECTIO N, IN THE MANNER SPECIFIED IN THAT CLAUSE, OR] WHICH HAS BEEN UTILISED FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN PROVIDING RELIEF TO THE VICTIMS OF EARTHQUAKE ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 56 IN GUJARAT OR WHICH REMAINS UNUTILISED IN TERMS OF SUB-SECTION (5C) OF SECTION 80G AND NOT TRANSFERRED TO THE PRIM E MINISTER'S NATIONAL RELIEF FUND ON OR BEFORE THE 31ST DAY OF M ARCH, 17 [2004] SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YE AR AND SHALL ACCORDINGLY BE CHARGED TO TAX:] PROVIDED ALSO THAT WHERE THE FUND OR TRUST OR INSTI TUTION OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (IV) OR SUB-CLAUSE (V) OR SUB-CLAUSE (VI) OR SUB-CLAUSE (VIA) DOES NOT APP LY ITS INCOME DURING THE YEAR OF RECEIPT AND ACCUMULATES IT, ANY PAYMENT OR CREDIT OUT OF SUCH ACCUMULATION TO ANY TRUST OR INS TITUTION REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA OR TO ANY FUND OR TRU ST OR INSTITUTION OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION REFERRED TO I N SUB-CLAUSE (IV) OR SUB-CLAUSE (V) OR SUB-CLAUSE (VI) OR SUB-CLAUSE (VIA) SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME TO THE OBJECTS FOR WHICH SUCH FUND OR TRUST OR INSTITUTION OR UNIVERSITY OR EDUCA TIONAL INSTITUTION OR HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION, AS THE CA SE MAY BE, IS ESTABLISHED : PROVIDED ALSO THAT WHERE THE FUND OR INSTITUTION RE FERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (IV) OR TRUST OR INSTITUTION REFER RED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (V) IS NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEN T 20 [OR IS APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, AS THE CAS E MAY BE,] OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITU TION REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (VI) OR ANY HOSPITAL OR O THER MEDICAL INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (VIA) , IS APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND SUBSEQUENT LY THAT GOVERNMENT OR THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IS SATI SFIED THAT (I ) SUCH FUND OR INSTITUTION OR TRUST OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER ME DICAL INSTITUTION HAS NOT (A ) APPLIED ITS INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION S CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (A) OF THE THIRD PROVISO; OR ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 57 (B ) INVESTED OR DEPOSITED ITS FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (B ) OF THE THIRD PROVISO; OR (II ) TH E ACTIVITIES OF SUCH FUND OR INSTITUTION OR TRUST O R ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION (A ) ARE NOT GENUINE; OR (B ) ARE NOT BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL OR ANY OF THE CONDITION S SUBJECT TO WHICH IT WAS NOTIFIED OR APPROVED, IT MAY, AT ANY TIME AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST THE PROPOSED ACTION TO THE CO NCERNED FUND OR INSTITUTION OR TRUST OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR O THER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTIT UTION, RESCIND THE NOTIFICATION OR, BY ORDER, WITHDRAW THE APPROVAL, A S THE CASE MAY BE, AND FORWARD A COPY OF THE ORDER RESCINDING THE NOTIFICATION OR WITHDRAWING THE APPROVAL TO SUCH FUND OR INSTITUTIO N OR TRUST OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION AND TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER:] 21 [PROVIDED ALSO THAT IN CASE THE FUND OR TRUST OR IN STITUTION OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN THE FIRST PROVIS O MAKES AN APPLICATION ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2006 F OR THE PURPOSES OF GRANT OF EXEMPTION OR CONTINUANCE THEREOF, SUCH APPLICATION SHALL BE 22 [MADE ON OR BEFORE THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR] FROM WHICH THE EXEMPTION IS SOUGHT :] 23 [PROVIDED ALSO THAT ANY ANONYMOUS DONATION REFERRED TO IN SECTION 115BBC ON WHICH TAX IS PAYABLE IN ACCORDANC E WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID SECTION SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME :] 24 [PROVIDED ALSO THAT ALL PENDING APPLICATIONS, ON WH ICH NO NOTIFICATION HAS BEEN ISSUED UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (IV) OR SUB-CLAUSE ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 58 (V) BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007, SHALL STAND T RANSFERRED ON THAT DAY TO THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND THE PRESCR IBED AUTHORITY MAY PROCEED WITH SUCH APPLICATIONS UNDER THOSE SUB- CLAUSES FROM THE STAGE AT WHICH THEY WERE ON THAT DAY:] 25 [PROVIDED ALSO THAT THE INCOME OF A TRUST OR INSTIT UTION REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (IV) OR SUB-CLAUSE (V) SHALL BE IN CLUDED IN ITS TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IF THE PROVISIONS OF TH E FIRST PROVISO TO CLAUSE (15) OF SECTION 2 BECOME APPLICABLE TO SU CH TRUST OR INSTITUTION IN THE SAID PREVIOUS YEAR, WHETHER OR N OT ANY APPROVAL GRANTED OR NOTIFICATION ISSUED IN RESPECT OF SUCH T RUST OR INSTITUTION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN OR RESCINDED :] 26 [PROVIDED ALSO THAT WHERE THE FUND OR INSTITUTION R EFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (IV) OR THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION REFERRE D TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (V) HAS BEEN NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, AS THE CASE MAY BE, OR AN Y UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN SUB-CL AUSE (VI) OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION REFERRED TO I N SUB-CLAUSE (VIA), HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORIT Y, AND THE NOTIFICATION OR THE APPROVAL IS IN FORCE FOR ANY PR EVIOUS YEAR, THEN, NOTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF T HIS SECTION [OTHER THAN CLAUSE (1) THEREOF] SHALL OPERATE TO EX CLUDE ANY INCOME RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF SUCH FUND OR TRUST OR INSTITUTION OR UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR HOSP ITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FROM THE T OTAL INCOME OF THE PERSON IN RECEIPT THEREOF FOR THAT PREVIOUS YEA R. EXPLANATION.IN THIS CLAUSE, WHERE ANY INCOME IS RE QUIRED TO BE APPLIED OR ACCUMULATED, THEN, FOR SUCH PURPOSE THE INCOME SHALL BE DETERMINED WITHOUT ANY DEDUCTION OR ALLOWANCE BY WAY OF DEPRECIATION OR OTHERWISE IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSET, ACQUISITION OF WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS AN APPLICATION OF INCOME UNDER THIS CLAUSE IN THE SAME OR ANY OTHER PREVIOUS YEAR. 61. ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS, THE POWER T O WITHDRAW THE EXEMPTION IS GRANTED TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY P ROVIDED HE IS SATISFIED THAT THE UNIVERSITY HAS NOT APPLIED ITS I NCOME IN ACCORDANCE ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 59 WITH THIRD PROVISO OR HAS NOT INVESTED OR DEPOSITED ITS FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE THIRD PROVISO OR THE ACTIVITIES OF THE UNIVERSITY ARE NOT GENUINE OR ARE NOT BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDA NCE WITH ALL OR ANY OF THE CONDITIONS SUBJECT TO WHICH IT WAS NOTIFIED OR APPROVED INITIALLY. THESE ARE THE ONLY SCENARIOS WHICH HAVE TO BE EXAMI NED IN THE FACTS OF EACH CASE BY THE LD CIT(E) BEFORE HE DECIDES TO INV OKES THE EXEMPTION GRANTED EARLIER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE POWER TO WITHD RAW THE EXEMPTION IS CIRCUMSCRIBED BY AND SUBJECT TO SATISFACTION OF ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE CONDITIONS AND THE LD CIT(E) CANNOT TRAVEL BE YOND THE SAME. SIMILARLY, WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE CANCELLATION OF RE GISTRATION GRANTED TO ANY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION UNDER SECTION 12AA(3) O F THE ACT CAN HAPPEN IN TWO SCENARIOS; ONE WHERE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE E DUCATIONAL INSTITUTION ARE NOT GENUINE AND SECONDLY, WHERE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION ARE NOT BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS FOR WHICH THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION HAS BEEN ESTABLIS HED. 62. THE LEGISLATURE HAS THUS ENVISAGED A DISTINCTIO N BETWEEN AN ACTIVITY NOT BEING GENUINE AND AN ACTIVITY WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATED OBJECTS. AN ACTIVITY THEREFORE COU LD BE GENUINE EVEN THOUGH THE SAME MAY NOT BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE S TATED OBJECTS. THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE AN ACTIVITY IS NOT IN ACC ORDANCE WITH THE STATED OBJECTS, IT WILL NOT RESULT IN SUCH ACTIVITY TO BE CLASSIFIED AS NON- GENUINE. THE TERM GENUINE HAS BEEN DEFINED TO M EAN TRUE, AUTHENTIC, REAL, ACTUAL, ORIGINAL AND IN CONTEXT OF A PERSON OR ACTION MEANS SINCERE, HONEST, TRUTHFUL, STRAIGHTFORWARD, D IRECT, FRANK, CANDID, AND OPEN. THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITY THUS HAS TO BE TESTED ON THE TOUCHSTONE OF ABOVE PARAMETERS. WHERE THE ACTIVITI ES ARE NOT CARRIED ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 60 OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATED OBJECTS OR NECESS ARY APPROVALS/PERMISSION/CLEARANCES ARE NOT OBTAINED BE FORE CARRYING OUT SUCH ACTIVITIES, THERE MAY BE VIOLATION, IRREGULARI TY OR EVEN A CASE OF ILLEGALITY WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER AND DOMAIN OF TH E RELEVANT AUTHORITY. HOWEVER, EVEN SUCH ACTIVITIES WHICH SATISFY THE TES T AS STATED ABOVE WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS GENUINE ACTIVITIES. 63. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE WHOLE CAS E OF THE REVENUE REST ON THE FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY HA S NOT CARRIED OUT THE ACTIVITIES AS PER THE OBJECTS BY RUNNING CERTAIN CO URSES BEYOND ITS OBJECTS AND WHICH ARE NOT APPROVED BY STATE LEGISLA TURE AS WELL AS PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI). THE REFORE, ITS ACTIVITIES CANNOT BE HELD AS GENUINE CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. TH E CHALLENGE IS THEREFORE NOT THE NATURE AND STREAM OF THE COURSES BEING CONDUCTED BY THE UNIVERSITY, THE COURSES WHICH ARE UNDISPUTEDLY EDUCATIONAL IN NATURE, RATHER THE CHALLENGE IS THAT SUCH COURSES A RE NOT APPROVED OR IN OTHER WORDS, THE UNIVERSITY HAS NOT SOUGHT APPROVAL OF THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES BEFORE CONDUCTING SUCH COURSES IN TERMS OF ADMISSION, RUNNING OF CLASSES AND FINALLY, AWARDING THE DEGREE /DIPLOMA TO THE STUDENTS ON QUALIFYING THE EXAMINATION. 64. ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES OF TH E UNIVERSITY OF CONDUCTING THESE COURSES ARE GENUINE OR NOT, WE DO NOT HAVE TO TRAVEL TOO FAR, AS WE NOTICED FROM PERUSAL OF RECORD AND P OINTED OUT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES, AS THE ANSWE R IS GIVEN BY THE REVENUE ITSELF WHERE IT HAS SUBSEQUENTLY GRANTED AP PROVAL TO THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY AS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION UND ER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 28.06.2017 WITH EFFECT FRO M 1.04.2016. THE ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 61 IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 1 0(23C)(VI) WAS WITHDRAWN VIDE ORDER DATED 14.09.2016 (WITH EFFECT FROM AY 2013-14). SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION SEE KING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA ON 13.12.2016 AND REGISTRATION U NDER SECTION 12AA WAS GRANTED ON 28.06.2017 WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 2016. 65. THOUGH THESE ARE TWO INDEPENDENT PROVISIONS, TH ERE ARE SIMILARITIES IN THE SENSE THAT AT THE TIME OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION/APPROVAL, THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIV ITIES ARE EXAMINED BY THE LD CIT(E) IN BOTH THE CASES AND SIMILARLY, AT T HE TIME OF WITHDRAWAL, THE TEST OF NON-GENUINENESS IS APPLIED IN BOTH THE CASES, AS WE HAVE NOTED EARLIER. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE WONDER HOW THE UNIVERSITY CAN BE SAID TO BE CARRYING ON NON-GENUINE ACTIVITIES BY CONDUCTING SUCH COURSES RESULTING IN WITHDRAWAL OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) AND CONDUCTING THE SAME COURSES AS GENUINE ACTIVITI ES RESULTING IN GRANT OF APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT WITHIN A SPAN OF LESS THAN A YEAR WHEN THE SAME COURSES ARE BEING CONDUCTED DURI NG THIS PERIOD. INTERESTINGLY, THE REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTI ON 12AA IS WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2016 EVEN COVERING THE PERIOD PRIOR TO DAT E OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT AND T HE SAME HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE SAME LD CIT(E) WHO HAS WITHDRAWN THE APPROVAL EARLIER. 66. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DAT ED 23.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA TALKS ABOUT THE SAME REASONS IN TERMS OF CONDUCTING COURSES NOT IN APPROVED LIST WHICH ARE SUBJECT MATTER OF WITHDRAWA L OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT AND AFTER TAKI NG THE ASSESSEES ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 62 SUBMISSIONS WHICH IS ON THE SAME LINES AS IN THE IN STANT APPEAL, HAS GRANTED THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT. 67. TO OUR MIND, WHERE THE REVENUE HAS ALREADY ACCE PTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF ASSESSEE UNIVERSIT Y, THE WITHDRAWAL OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT ON T HIS GROUND IS NOT WARRANTED. 68. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT WHERE THE DEGREES AWARDE D BY THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY IN COURSES OF A.N.M., G.N.M. AND B.ED. A RE HELD VALID BY THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF RAJASTHAN N URSING COUNIL VS SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY & OTHERS (SUPRA), SUNIL BISHNO I & ORS. V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (SUPRA) AND SHANTI LAL V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (SUPRA), THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE REGARDING GENUINENESS O F THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY WHEREBY SUCH COURSES ARE GE NUINELY CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY. WE ARE THEREFORE OF T HE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE GENUINENESS OF CONDUCTING SUCH COURSES WHI CH ARE UNDOUBTEDLY IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION CANNOT BE DISPUTED AND ON THIS GROUND ITSELF, THE WITHDRAWAL OF EXEMPTION IS NOT WARRANTED AND IS LIABLE TO BE SET- ASIDE. 69. IN THIS REGARD, WE REFER TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CCIT VS GEETANJALI UNIVERSITY TRUST VS. CCIT, UDAIPUR (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE, THE FACTS OF THE CASE WERE THAT T HE ASSESSEE-TRUST WAS RUNNING A MEDICAL COLLEGE. DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR 2008-09, THE ADMISSIONS BY THE ASSESS EE-TRUST WERE NOT MADE ON THE BASIS OF MERIT LIST/WAITING LIST PREPAR ED ON THE BASIS OF ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 63 RPMT-2008 EXAMINATION, WHICH SYSTEM HAD BEEN APPROV ED BY THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA. A WRIT PETITION WAS FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AND SINGLE JUDGE HELD THAT MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA REGULATIONS WERE MANDATORY AND HAD TO BE COMPLIED WITH. THE DIVISION BENCH UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE SINGLE JUDGE. THEREUPON, THE ASSESSEE- TRUST APPROACHED THE APEX COURT BY FILING A SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION A ND THE MATTER WAS STILL PENDING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. IN THE MEANTIME, THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER TAKING A VIEW THAT ILLEGALITY IN ADMIS SION WAS COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IN THE YEAR 2008, AND, A PROF IT MOTIVE IN THE SAME COULD NOT BE RULED OUT, REJECTED THE ASSESSEE'S APP LICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. IN THE ABOVE FACTS, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS RULED IN PARA 5 TO 10 WHICH ARE REPRODUCE D AS UNDER:- 5. HAVING HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSELS, THIS COURT IS O F THE OPINION THAT THE SINCE QUESTION OF LEGALITY OF THE ADMISSIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER TRUST IS STILL A MATTER SUB JUDIC E BEFORE THE APEX COURT, OF COURSE, THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HAS HELD AGAINST THE PETITIONER TRUST THAT SUCH ADMISSIONS WERE NOT MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW VIDE JUDGMENT OF LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AS AFORESAID AND AFFIRMED BY THE DIVISION BENCH, IT CA NNOT BE SAID FINALLY YET THAT PETITIONER HAS COMMITTED ANY SUCH ILLEGALITY AND NO SUCH OPINION COULD BE FORMED BY THE LEARNED CHIEF C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SO LONG AS THE MATTER IS PENDING BEFO RE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND IS NOT DECIDED AGAINST T HE PETITIONER TRUST. 6. RIGHT TO LITIGATE A PARTICULAR ISSUE IN THE COUR T OF LAW IS A LEGAL RIGHT OF ANY INSTITUTION OR A CHARITABLE TRUST, WHO IS SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM INCOME TAX FOR WHICH SANCTION IS REQ UIRED BY THE ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 64 COMPETENT AUTHORITY WITHIN THE PARAMETERS LIKE NO P ROFIT MOTIVE, OR OBJECT OF EDUCATION OF THE TRUST ETC. LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT WHICH ARE RELEVANT AND NOT THE A DMISSION PROCEDURE UNDERTAKEN BY THE PETITIONER TRUST. NEXUS BETWEEN THE PROFIT MOTIVE AND ALLEGED ILLEGAL ADMISSION IS TOO REMOTE AND CANNOT BE PRESUMED WITHOUT ANY OTHER ADVERSE MATERI AL ON RECORD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, FOR DRAWING SUCH ADVER SE INFERENCE. LEARNED CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIDE ORDER DATED 27/1/2010 HAS ONLY ASSIGNED ONE SINGLE REASON AS ST ATED ABOVE TO DENY THE APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 10(23C) OF THE A CT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27/1/2 010 IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE:- '11. IT IS ALSO APPARENT THAT THE TRUST IS NOT SATI SFYING ESSENTIAL CONDITION FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(VI) AND (VIA). AS PER THE RELEVANT CLAUSE, ANY INCOME RECEIVED BY ANY PERSON ON BEHALF OF ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. MOREO VER, THE INCOME EARNED SHOULD BE APPLIED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIV ELY TO THE OBJECTS FOR WHICH IT IS ESTABLISHED, I.E. FOR EDUCA TIONAL PURPOSE. IN THE INSTITUTION'S CASE, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE ADMISSIONS MADE FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2008-2009 WERE IL LEGAL. THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION WOULD NOT BE SERVED, IF THE ED UCATION IS FOR STUDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY ADMITTED. THE PURP OSE OF EDUCATION AS CONTEMPLATED IN THE SECTION WOULD BE S ERVED ONLY IF THE STUDENTS HAVE BEEN LEGALLY ADMITTED AND NOT OTH ERWISE. THE SPENDING OF FUNDS ON EDUCATION OF STUDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED ILLEGALLY WILL NOT AMOUNT TO APPLICATION O F INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION. IN THE TRUST'S CASE, NEITHER THE CONDITION ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 65 REGARDING EXISTENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION NO R THE APPLICATION OF FUNDS FOR THE OBJECTS, ARE BEING FUL FILLED. 12. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND THE DE CISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, I HEREBY REJECT THE TRUST'S APP LICATION FOR APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) AND (VIA) FOR A. Y. 2008-09 ONWARDS. SD/- (MUKESH BHANTI) CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, UDAIPUR.' 7. THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER GRANTING SUCH APPROVAL PASSED ON 17/1/2011 SUBJECT TO USUAL CONDITIONS READS AS UNDE R: - 'IN EXERCISE OF POWERS CONFERRED ON ME BY THE SUB-C LAUSE (VI) OF CLAUSE (23C) OF SECTION 10 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 (43 OF 1961) READ WITH RULE 2CA OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962, I CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR HEREBY ACCORD A PPROVAL TO M/S. GEETANJALI UNIVERSITY TRUST, UDAIPUR (PAN: AAA TG9525E) FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE SAID SECTION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND ONWARDS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS MENTIONED HEREUND ER:' 8. IF THE ALLEGED ILLEGAL ADMISSIONS MADE BY THE PE TITIONER TRUST IN THE YEAR 2008-09 COULD BE A VALID CRITERIA OR RELEV ANT CONSIDERATION FOR DENYING APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 10 (23C) OF THE ACT, SUCH ALLEGED ILLEGAL ADMISSIONS CONTINUED IN T HE SUBSEQUENT YEARS ALSO AS THOSE STUDENTS CONTINUED TO BE IN THE COLLEGE FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS ALSO AND THE SAME AUTHORITY ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS, ONCE DENIED THE APPROVAL AND SUBSEQUENTLY GR ANTED SUCH APPROVAL FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THIS INCONGRUITY IN THE TWO ORDERS ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 66 ITSELF REPELS THE ARGUMENT OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE RESPONDENT REVENUE. 9. IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT ALSO, THIS GROUND A LONE AS SUCH COULD NOT BE RELEVANT AND A VALID BASIS FOR REFUSIN G THE APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT TO THE PETITIONER TRUST ESPECIALLY SINCE THE MATTER IS STILL PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BL E SUPREME COURT. OF COURSE, THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED IS FREE T O APPLY ITS MIND AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE RELEVANT CONSIDERATION WH ILE DECIDING THE CASE OF PETITIONER TRUST UNDER SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT AS LAID DOWN IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(23C) ITSE LF AND IF THERE ARE OTHER GROUNDS MADE OUT OF REJECTION OF ITS CASE UNDER SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT OR SAY IF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ALSO HOLDS AGAINST THE PETITIONER, THE AUTHORITY CONCERN ED MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10 (23C) OF THE ACT. 10. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION IS ALLOWED & SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEX. 16 DATED 27/1/2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT, THE SAID AUTHORITY IS LEFT FREE TO DECIDE AFRESH THE SAID PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y. 2008-09 AND ONWARDS T ILL A.Y. 2010- 11 BY PASSING FRESH SPEAKING ORDER UNDER SECTION 10 (23C) OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE PETIT IONER TRUST. NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 70. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, THE PARAMETE RS LIKE NO PROFIT MOTIVE AND OBJECT OF EDUCATION OF THE TRUST ETC. LA ID DOWN UNDER ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 67 SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT ARE RELEVANT AND NOT THE ADMISSION PROCEDURE UNDERTAKEN BY THE PETITIONER TRUST WHICH IS SUB-JUDICE BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. THE RELEVANT CONSIDERATI ON WHILE DECIDING THE CASE OF PETITIONER TRUST UNDER SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT ARE AS LAID DOWN IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(23C) ITSELF AN D IF THERE ARE ANY VIOLATIONS THEREOF, THE SAME MAY BE A BASIS FOR REJ ECTION SEEKING APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT. ON THE S AME ANALOGY, WE FIND THAT THE RELEVANT CONSIDERATION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPROVAL ALREADY GRANTED UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) ARE WELL LAID DOWN IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(23C)(VI) AND THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED IS REQUIRED TO BE STRICTLY GUIDED BY SUCH CONSIDERATIO NS AND ONLY ON NON- FULFILLMENT OF SUCH CONDITIONS, THE ACTION FOR WITH DRAWAL OF EXEMPTION CAN BE TAKEN. AS WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY IS CARRYING OUT GENUINE EDUCATION ACTIVITIES AND THERE IS THUS NO VIOLATION OF ANY SUCH CONDITIONS BY THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY W HICH CAN FORM THE BASIS FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL AS SO PROVIDED IN THE 13 TH PROVISIO TO SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. 71. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT IN THIS CASE O F GEETANJALI UNIVERSITY, THE APPROVAL WAS INITIALLY DENIED AND S UBSEQUENTLY GRANTED ON THE SAME FACTS BY THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT: IF THE ALLEGED ILLEGAL ADMISSIONS MADE BY THE PETI TIONER TRUST IN THE YEAR 2008-09 COULD BE A VALID CRITERIA OR RELEV ANT CONSIDERATION FOR DENYING APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 10 (23C) OF THE ACT, SUCH ALLEGED ILLEGAL ADMISSIONS CONTINUED IN T HE SUBSEQUENT YEARS ALSO AS THOSE STUDENTS CONTINUED TO BE IN THE COLLEGE FOR ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 68 SUBSEQUENT YEARS ALSO AND THE SAME AUTHORITY ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS, ONCE DENIED THE APPROVAL AND SUBSEQUENTLY GR ANTED SUCH APPROVAL FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THIS INCONGRUITY IN THE TWO ORDERS ITSELF REPELS THE ARGUMENT OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE RESPONDENT REVENUE. 72. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE PARI-MATERIA IN THE SENSE THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, SAME EDUCATIONAL CO URSES WERE BEING CONDUCTED WHEN THE APPROVAL WAS WITHDRAWN UNDER SEC TION 10(23C)(VI) AND SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVAL WAS GRANTED THOUGH UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT WHICH CLEARLY BRING OUT THE INCONGRUITY WHI CH CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE EYES OF LAW. FURTHER, IN THE INSTA NT CASE, THERE IS NO ADVERSE MATERIAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY RA THER THE LATTER HAS SUBMITTED THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HI GH COURT WHERE THE DEGREES AWARDED BY THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY IN COURS ES OF A.N.M., G.N.M. AND B.ED. ARE HELD VALID. THE LD CIT/DR HAS DRAWN REFERENCE TO REGULATIONS OF INDIAN MEDICAL COUNCIL AND A PUBLIC NOTICE STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY MCI FO R STARTING MEDICAL COURSES. IN OUR VIEW, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE UNIVERS ITY IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM MCI FOR CONDUCTING MEDICAL COU RSES IS A MATTER FOR THE MCI OR CONCERNED APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE, AS FAR AS THE GENUINENESS OF ACTIVITIES OF CONDUCTING SUCH COURSE S IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO ADVERSE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THE AFORESAID DECISION IN CASE OF GEETANJALI UNIVERSITY SUPPORT T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY. ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 69 73. REGARDING OTHER CONTENTION OF THE LD CIT(E) THA T THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY IS RUNNING A HOSPITAL, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT SUCH HOSPITAL WAS RUN ON COMMERCIAL BASIS AND THERE ARE ANY EARNINGS FROM SUCH HOSPITAL. EVEN THE INCOME AND EX PENDITURE ACCOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE ONLY TALK S ABOUT THE HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURE AND NOT ACTUALLY RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE OR ANY EARNINGS FROM SUCH H OSPITAL. THEREFORE, WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD AR THAT IT IS A MEDICAL RESEARCH AND TEACHING HOSPITAL WITH THE SOL E OBJECT OF PROVIDING TEACHING AND TRAINING TO THE STUDENTS IN MEDICAL CO URSES SUCH AS NURSING, PARAMEDICAL ETC. AND ALSO TAKING CARE OF G ENERAL HEALTHCARE AND WELLNESS OF THE STUDENTS AND STAFF OF THE ASSES SEE UNIVERSITY. 74. FURTHER, REGARDING ACCUMULATION OF FUNDS U/S 11 (2), THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY HAS FILED THE NECESSARY DETAILS AND THER E IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD CIT(E) REGARDING ANY VIOLATION A S SPECIFIED IN THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. IN ABSE NCE OF ANY SPECIFIC AND ADVERSE FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD CIT(E), IT C ANNOT BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY HAS VIOLATED THE SPECIFIED COND ITION AND WHICH COULD FORM THE BASIS FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL. 75. IN THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT REFERRED SUPRA, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR WITHDRAWING THE EXE MPTION SO GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) O F THE ACT AND WE ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016 M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY VS. CIT(E) 70 ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE LD CIT(E) TO RESTORE THE EXE MPTION APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT FROM THE DATE THE SA ME WAS WITHDRAWN. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/01/2020. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 03/01/2020. *SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY, JHUNJHUNU. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- CIT(E), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE { ITA NO. 1012/JP/2016} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR.
