RAJ TECH UNI KOTA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS

SAW/1874/2011

AI Insights

The case involves Rajasthan Technical University, which appealed against the decision of the Income Tax Officer denying them exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of alternative remedy. The appellant challenged the order requiring them to file a copy of the income tax return and audit report. The Supreme Court's decision in Jeans Knit (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. influenced the High Court's decision to remit the case back to the Single Judge for a merit-based decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 771277 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jeans Knit (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PARINITOO JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY JHANWAR
• Keywords: Alternative remedy; Income tax exemption; Judicial review; Section 10(23C)(iiiab)
• Section: 10(23C)(iiiab)

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1874 / 2011 Rajasthan Technical University, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota, Through Its Finance Officer, Sh. S.N Sharma S/o Sh. Ratan Lal Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, 691-A, R.k Puram, Kota, (Rajasthan) ----Appellant Versus 1. Income-Tax, Officer, Ward- 1(2), C.R. Building, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota 2. Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R. Building, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota 3. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, Delhi-110 001 4. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001 5. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Secretariat, Jaipur ----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1875 / 2011 Rajasthan Technical University, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota, Through Its Finance Officer, Sh. S.n Sharma S/o Sh. Ratan Lal Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, 691-A, R.k Puram, Kota, (Rajasthan) ----Appellant Versus 1. Income-Tax, Officer, Ward- 1(2), C.R. Building, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota 2. Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R. Building, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota 3. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, Delhi-110 001 4. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001 5. State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Secretariat, Jaipur ----Respondents (2 of 4) [SAW-1874/2011] _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar For Respondent(s) : Ms. Parinitoo Jain. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Judgment / Order 04/09/2017 1. By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner has preferred the writ petition challenging impugned order dated 26.07.2011 whereby the respondent Income-Tax Officer has over-ruled the objection of the petitioner that petitioner University is exempted under Section 10(23C) (iiiab) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short 'the Act') and has directed the petitioner to file copy of income tax return and audit report for the year under consideration. 3. From the submission, pleadings and documents, it appears that for assessment year 2007-08, a notice dated 08.07.2011 was given to petitioner-University. The petitioner filed its reply/objection petition dated 12.07.2011 seeking exemption from the applicability of the Act under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act. Learned Income Tax Officer vide its order dated 26.07.2011 came to a conclusion that the petitioner is not exempted under Section 10 (23C)(iiiab) of the Act. 4. It is contended that the reasons assigned by the Income Tax Officer for not accepting the objection of the petitioner are illegal (3 of 4) [SAW-1874/2011] and without jurisdiction, therefore, this Court should interfere in the said order and quash the same. 5. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. 6. Counsel for the respondent has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jeans Knit (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. :: (2017) 145 DTR (SC) 16 wherein it has been held as under:- “2. We find that the High Courts in all these cases have dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the appellant/assessee herein challenging the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the reasons which were recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment. These writ petitions are dismissed by the High Courts as not maintainable. The aforesaid view taken is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Calcutta Discount Limited Company vs. ITO. [(1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC)]. We, thus, set aside the impugned judgments and remit the cases to the respective High Courts to decide the writ petitions on merits. 3. We may make it clear that this Court has not made any observations on the merits of the cases, i.e. the contentions which are raised by the appellant challenging the move of the Income Tax Authorities to re-open the assessment. Each case shall be examined on its own merits keeping in view the scope of judicial review while entertaining such matters, as laid down by this Court in various judgments.” 6. In that view of the matter, the appeals are allowed and we remit back the matter to the learned Single Judge. However, we make it clear that the matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge only in view of the decision of the Supreme Court. We are not expressing any opinion on merits of the case and the learned Single Judge will decide the same on merits. It will open (4 of 4) [SAW-1874/2011] for both the department to file reply/objection. Till the matter is decided by the learned Single Judge, no recovery from the appellant shall be effected. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Pdaiya/56-57 "