Adivasi Kheti Vikas Yojana v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat State
High Court
05 Apr 1999 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Adivasi Kheti Vikas Yojana v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat State
Date of order
05 Apr 1999
Assessment year(s)
1991-92, 1995-96
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Adivasi Kheti Vikas Yojana v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat State, the High Court (1999) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 782 of 1999
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.BALIA. and
MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgements? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No @
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No @ 2.
To be referred to the Reporter or not? No @ 2. To
e referred to the Reporter or not? No @ 2. To be ref
rred to the Reporter or not? No @ 2. To be referred
o the Reporter or not? No @ 2. To be referred to the
Reporter or not? No @ 2. To be referred to the Repor
er or not? No @ 2. To be referred to the Reporter or
not? No @ 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
No @ 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
@ 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
@ 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
@ 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgement? No
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? No
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
�No
-------------------------------------------------------------- ADIVASI KHETI VIKAS YOJANAVersus
CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT STATE
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR KA PUJ for Petitioner
MR MIHIR JOSHI with MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.BALIA. and
MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE
Date of decision: 05/04/99
ORAL JUDGEMENT (per R. Balia, J.)
�Rule. Service of rule is waived by Mr. Mihir
Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents.
2.�Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The
short issue raised by the petitioner claiming to be a public charitable trust is that it applied for registration under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 u/s 12A on 11.1.1989. Another trust, namely, Adivasi Pragati Mandal, Meghraj, having the same management, which is also a registered public charitable trust, also applied for the registration u/s 12A of the Act on the same date. According to the petitioner, on 31.7.1989, both the trusts were granted registration u/s 12A of the Act. While the other trust, Adivasi Pragati Mandal, has its registration certificate in its possession, the registration certificate in the case of the petitioner is not traceable. The difficulty faced by the petitioner is that they have filed returns of their income for A.Y. 1991-92 to 1994-95 and claimed exemption u/s 11 to 13 of the Income-tax Act and which have been accepted by the revenue. However, for the A.Y. 1995-96, the ITO demanded production of the certificate of registration u/s 12A of the Act. As the same is not traceable, the petitioner has applied for issue of
duplicate certificate. However, no response has been
received from the revenue.
duplicate certificate. However, no response has been
received from the revenue.
3.�The learned counsel for the revenue urges that, though the application dated 11.1.89 is on record, the order made thereon is not traceable with them either. In these circumstances, assessment for the A.Y.. 1995-96 has been completed by treating as if there is no registration and the claim to exemption has been rejected for which an appeal against that order has been filed. However, in the absence of registration certificate, the same difficulty is likely to be faced by the petitioner in appeal.
4.�In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to decide the application of the petitioner for issuing duplicate certificate within a fortnight. If it is found that by any inadvertence no order actually has been made on the application dated 11.1.89, the same may now be considered and decided in accordance with law,
also within this period.
5.�Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.
_____
(hn)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.