By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon Smt.meera V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/21ST PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 7937 of 2015 (N) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- SET FREE CHURCHES INDIA 2/254/1, TITOS BHAVAN, KUTTICHIRA ROAD OLLUKKARA PO, KALATHODU THRISSUR 680655, REPRESENTED BY DR. THOMAS ALEXANDER PRESIDENT. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CR BUILDINGS, IS PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 18 CR BUILDINGS, IS PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 18 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) CR BUILDINGS, THRISSUR 680001 R BY SRI.KMV.PANDALAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7937 of 2015 (N) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- EXT.P1:COPY OF TRUST DEED OF THE PETITIONER 04.06.2014 EXT.P2:COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT 08.07.2014 EXT.P3:COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT 13.01.2015 EXT.P4:COPY OF AMENDMENT DEED OF THE PETITIONER 29.01.2015 EXT.P5:COPY OF NOTE PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1STRESPONDENT EXT.P6:COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT 30.01.2015 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: --------------------------------------- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.7937 OF 2015 (N)-----------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of March, 2015 J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P6 order passedby the 1[st] respondent, whereby, the application preferred by thepetitioner for registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act,1961, has been rejected by the 1[st] respondent. The contention of thepetitioner, in its challenge against Ext.P6 order, is that the reasons,on the basis of which the 1[st] respondent has rejected the applicationsubmitted by the petitioner, are that (i) the trust deed presented bythe petitioner along with his application did not contain certainclauses that were mandatory for the purposes of grant of registration.and (ii) that the petitioner had not produced any material to show thatthe trust in question had commenced charitable activitiessimultaneously with the presenting of an application for exemption.In the writ petition, the petitioner points out that on the 1[st] respondentintimating the petitioner with regard to the absence of the relevantclauses in the trust deed, he had immediately rectified the mistakethrough an amendment deed dated 29.1.2015, which was then presented for registration before the Sub Registry, Ollukara. It issubmitted that he obtained the amended deed from the Sub Registryon 7.2.2015, by which time, however, the 1[st] respondent had alreadypassed Ext.P6 order that is impugned in the writ petition. It is alsocontended that, while the petitioner had in fact produced material toshow that the trust had taken charitable activities simultaneously withthe presenting of the application before the 1[st] respondent, Ext.P6order of the 1[st] respondent does not refer to the said material. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioneras also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. presented for registration before the Sub Registry, Ollukara. It issubmitted that he obtained the amended deed from the Sub Registryon 7.2.2015, by which time, however, the 1[st] respondent had alreadypassed Ext.P6 order that is impugned in the writ petition. It is alsocontended that, while the petitioner had in fact produced material toshow that the trust had taken charitable activities simultaneously withthe presenting of the application before the 1[st] respondent, Ext.P6order of the 1[st] respondent does not refer to the said material. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioneras also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the caseas also the submissions made across the bar, I find that this is a casewhere the 1[st] respondent was obliged, as per the provisions of theStatute, to pass orders in the application on or before 31.1.2015. Itwas on account of this statutory compulsion that the 1[st] respondentcould not grant the petitioner further time for producing documentsfor the purposes of disposing the application. Inasmuch as thepetitioner has now demonstrated that the defects pointed out by the 1[st] respondent have since been cured by the petitioner, and further,there is also the contention with regard to non-consideration ofmaterial that was produced by the petitioner, while passing Ext.P6order, I feel that the interests of justice would be served by directingthe 1[st] respondent to reconsider the matter, in the light of the materialnow available to support the application submitted by the petitioner.In order to enable the 1[st] respondent to do this, I quash Ext.P6 orderand direct him to reconsider the matter and pass fresh ordersthereon, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of acopy of this judgment. The petitioner shall appear before the 1[st]respondent at 11 a.m. on any day, during the week commencing from23.3.2015, as may be intimated to him by the 1[st] respondent. The writ petition is disposed as above. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp