SANJAY SIKSHA SAMITI V. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME andORS

CW/9894/2009

AI Insights

The case involves Sanjay Siksha Samiti, an educational institution, which filed a writ petition against the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur, challenging the denial of exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) for the assessment year 2004-05. The denial was based on the grounds that the application was filed after the end of the assessment year and the petitioner failed to provide required details despite multiple requests. The court noted that exemptions for the subsequent years were granted, indicating some compliance. The court found that the matter should be reconsidered, emphasizing that the application should not be rejected solely on procedural grounds such as delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 726276 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Section 10(23C)(vi)
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J K SINGHI; ANUROOP SINGHI
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY JHANWAR
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Exemption; Non-cooperative; Retrospective effect; Procedural section
• Section: 10(23C)(vi)

Judgement Text

"CW9894/2009 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9894/2009 Sanjay Siksha Samiti Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur and Others Date of Order ::: 11.02.2011 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Prakul Khurana for Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, counsel for petitioner Shri J.K. Singhi with Shri Anuroop Singhi, counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- This writ petition has been filed by assessee against order passed by respondent no.1 Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur, dated 18.05.2009, by which assessee was not granted exemption for assessment year 2004-05 on premise that requirement of filing application within financial year has been introduced with effect from 01.06.2006 and this being a procedural section, has retrospective effect. Application was rejected assigning additional reason that assessee has not submitted required details and has also filed application after end of assessment year and therefore application under Section 10(23C)(vi) for assessment year 2004-05 was rejected. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that aforesaid impugned order was passed without application of mind inasmuch as petitioner submitted composite application for assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07; while application has been granted for respective two financial years, rest has been CW9894/2009 // 2 // declined. The respondents have already recovered entire tax amount. Shri J.K. Singhi, learned counsel for respondents has contested the plea set up by petitioner and submitted that petitioner did not cooperate in providing required material despite number of letters, whereas fact is that petitioner has produced all material which is evident from fact that Commissioner of Income Tax allowed application for subsequent two assessment years. Learned counsel for respondent department, opposed writ petition and submitted that petitioner failed to furnish requisite details in respect to number of letters and adopted non- cooperative attitude. He completely failed to submit documents for assessment-year 2005-06 despite several opportunities. He made particular reference to letter dated 11.08.2005 by which he was required to furnish documents. Learned counsel has submitted that opportunity was granted to petitioner on as many as seven different dates but neither anybody appeared on their behalf nor document was produced and therefore application was rightly rejected. Having regard to fact that already respondents have granted exemption for respective two assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 to petitioner, petitioner is an educational institution and for same purpose it is covered by exemption provisions and already application has been submitted by petitioner and further that respondents have now submitted before this court that exemption was denied on ground of non-furnishing required documents/details, and not merely on account of expiry of limitation and also considering the fact CW9894/2009 // 3 // that recovery has been made by respondents, if not fully but at-least substantially, it is deemed appropriate that the matter is reconsidered by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. In the circumstances, impugned order is set-aside. The matter is remanded to Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur for reconsideration on merits. The petitioner is directed to produce all material documents which he wants to rely upon within two weeks before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, who may pass fresh order within three months, if necessary, after providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner. Recovery of amount except already made shall remain stayed subject to final order that may be passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Application shall be decided on merits and shall not be rejected on the ground of delay. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman// "