LITTLE ANGELS MODERN SCHOOL V. THE COMMISSIONER OF

WP/21676/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Little Angles Modern School, Educational Society, which filed a writ petition against the Commissioner of Income-(Exemptions) and the Income-tax Officer, challenging orders related to the assessment year 2015-16 under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner sought to quash the orders and requested reconsideration of their claims for quantification of excess application inclusive of capital expenditure, citing various judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts. The court found that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to present their case and that the orders were passed without proper reasoning, leading to the decision to quash the orders and remit the matter for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 726696 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT(E) vs. Subros Educational Society, CIT vs. Institute of Banking, Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) And another vs. Ohio University Christ College, Commissioner of Income-tax And Another vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Section 264 of the Act
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: JINITA CHATTERGEE
• Keywords: Exemptions; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Writ of Certiorari; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 264

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR W.P.No.21676 OF 2021(T-IT) BETWEEN: Little Angles Modern School, Educational Society, No.5, 8th Main, 3rd Cross, Sadananda Nagar, East of NGEF, Bengaluru-560 038, Represented by its Secretary, Sri. D.Venkatesh, Aged about 64 years, Son of Sri. Deenadayalu Naidu. ... Petitioner (By Ms. Jinita Chattergee , Advocate for Sri. S. Parthasarathi, Advocate) AND: 1. The Commissioner of Income-(Exemptions) Unity buildings Annexe, Mission road, Bengaluru-560 027. 2. The Income-tax Officer, (Exemptions), Ward-1, 6th Floor, Unity Building Annexe, 2 P.Kalingarao road, Bengaluru-560 027. ...Respondents (By Sri.K.V. Aravind, Advocate) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order of the R1 dated: 24.04.2020 padded under section 264 of the Act for the Assessment year 2015-16 in file (Annexure D) and etc. This writ petition, coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following: ORDER In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: (a) issue a Writ of Certiorari or a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, quashing the order of the 1st Respondent dated 24.04.2020 passed under Section 264 of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16 in file No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2020-21/1026975715(1) ANNEXURE-D); (b) issue a Writ of Certiorari or a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, quashing the order of the 1st Respondent dated 16.12.2020 passed under Section 264 of the Act for the 3 assessment year 2015-16 in file No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2020-21/1029027083(1) ANNEXURE-K); (c) issue a Writ of Mandamus or a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to consider the additional claim of the Petitioner for quantification of excess application inclusive of the capital expenditure claimed on account of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT(E) vs. Subros Educational Society, 303 CTR 0001 and also the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Institute of Banking (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom) and further judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) And another vs. Ohio University Christ College, (2018) 408 ITR 342 (Karn) and in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax And Another vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee (2018) 408 ITR 231 (Karn); (d) issue a Writ of Mandamus or a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd Respondent to consider the application filed under Section 154 of the Act in light of the 4 cited judgments herein above to rectify the assessment by quantifying the excess application after taking into account the capital expenditure over income as per Profit & Loss Account in light of the direction of the 1st Respondent vide his order dated 24.04.2020 under Section 264 of the Act and also on account of additional claim made by the Petitioner which are fully supported by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court cited herein above. (e) Pass such other order, direction or writ as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, and (f) Direct the respondents to award the costs of this writ petition.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to re-iterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the 5 material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the impugned order at Annexure-D in order to point out that despite several contentions urged by the petitioner in the revision application/petition, dated 17.12.2018, the same has not been considered bearing in mind the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. SUBROS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY and this has resulted in erroneous conclusion. It is also submitted that neither sufficient nor reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner to urge all the contentions before the revisional authority prior to passing the impugned order dated 24.04.2020 and as such, the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice and the same requires to be quashed. It is also submitted that all subsequent orders/proceedings, etc which are consequent to 6 Annexure-D dated 24.04.2020 also deserves to be quashed. In support of her contentions, she has relied on the following decisions: (1) 303 CTR (SC) 1: Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Subros Educational Society. (2) (2022) 286 Taxman 97 (SC): Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Subros Educational Society. (3) (2018) 408 ITR 352 (Kar): Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & Anr. Vs. OHIO University Christ College, Academy for Management Education. (4) (2018) 408 ITR 231 (Kar): Commissioner of Income Tax and another vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee. (5) 185 CTR 492 (Bom): Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Institute of Banking Personnel. 7 (6) 242 ITR 703 (Kar): Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Janmabhoomi Press Trust. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, in the light of specific assertion made by the petitioner that no reasonable or sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner to put forth various contentions and claims urged by the petitioner, as can be seen from the representation/application, etc. produced at Annexures E to J coupled with the fact that the impugned order at Annexure-D dated 24.04.2020 is a non-speaking order which has been passed without assigning cogent or valid reasons, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and proper to 8 set aside the impugned order at Annexure-D dated 24.04.2020 and remit the matter back to the respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (1) The petition is hereby allowed. (2) The impugned order at Annexure-D dated 24.04.2020 and the consequential impugned order at Annexure-K dated 16.12.2020 are hereby quashed. (3) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration of the claims of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law bearing in mind the various contentions and claims urged by the petitioner in Annexures E to J produced by the petitioner in the present petition and 9 bearing in mind the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, of this Court and other High Courts, referred to supra in the body of the order. Sd/- JUDGE Cm/- "