C v. Chief Commissioner Ofincometaxnewcentralrevenuebuiiding,Civillines, Raipur (C.g
High Court
21 Jun 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · cghccisdb
Parties
C v. Chief Commissioner Ofincometaxnewcentralrevenuebuiiding,Civillines, Raipur (C.g
Date of order
21 Jun 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In C v. Chief Commissioner Ofincometaxnewcentralrevenuebuiiding,Civillines, Raipur (C.g, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE smaLE BENCH
FOR CHHATTusaARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITIONmNo.gmof201o
K/Tahanadi Education Society
Petitioner
C-15,ShailendraNagar,Opp.BOBATM,BeforeTagoreNagar Chowk, Raipur (C.G.)throughSecretaryShailendraJain, 21 South Avenue ChoubeyColony, Raipur (C.G.)
.
Versus
1.Chief Commissioner ofincomeTaxNewCentralRevenueBuiiding,CivilLines, Raipur (C.G.)
Respondentg
Before:Hon'bletheChiefJusticeandhiscompanioniudqes[of][ the][ Hon'ble][ Hiqh][ Court][ of][ Judicature][ for]vChhattisgarh at Bilaspur.
Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of [India][ for][ issuance]of suitable directions orders or writs including writs[in][ the][ nature][ of]Mandamus Certiorari etc.
Thehumblepetitionofthepetitionerabovenamed
most
HIGH COURT OF CHHA’E'TESGARH AT BILASPUR
‘W‘Rl’l‘ PETEI‘IQN {T} N0. 1944 0f2010
PETIHONER
Mahanadi Education Society.
VERSUSChief Commissioner oflnoome Tax
RESPONDENTS
FETITION UNBER ARTICLE 226 OF
'i‘HE CON STH‘UTION OF iNDiA
SBHon’Me Smi Sat§s31 h Agnmoénl J.
Present:Shri Neelabh Dubev. Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raj eev 9h1‘i‘vastzwa. Staiidmg Counsel for the reSpondents.
i...
URD£R (GRALS(Passed[on][ 213‘][ day][ of][ June,][ 2011)]
Chailengeinthispetitionistotheorderdated22,102009(Azmexui‘e[P/6)]passed[by][ the][ Chief‘Commissioiler][ oflncome][ Tax,]Raipui‘, under section10(23C)(\7i) of the Income Tax Act,1961(for short,W19 Act, 1961)
The case ofthe petitiorier is that the petitioner made an applicatioxifor grant of exemption Ii’om income tax under section 10(23C)(Vi)of the Act?1961for the assessment year 2009~2009 onwards inForm No. 56-19. In support ofthe application, the auiiited aecountsfor the financial year 20G4-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 with otheri‘eievant{ioeunientswereaisofiieé.Therespondent/ChiefCommissioner, Without considering the purpose of investment initmastzueture (Leveiopment 0n the land and building which wererequired for etiucation purpose held that thepetitioner[was][ not]entitieétoexemptionundertheaforesaidprovision,thus,theapplication of the petitioner was rejected.It is further submittedthattheSupremeCourtin {slamw Academy of Education &Anotherv.State ofKnrnamm & Othersj. had held that the feeStructurefor eachinstitute must befixed keepingin mind theinfrastructure and facilities avaiiabie anti investment. the salariespaid[to][ the][ teachers][ and][ other][ future]pian[for][ expansion][ and][ for]bettermentoftheinstitutionetc.Thus,makinginvestment
L)b.
inbuildingorimprovememoflandforthebettermentofeducational'institutioncomesWithintheambitofeducationalpurpose.The Commissioner has notoonsiéeredall thefactsinJAuazailbeforerejeclingtheapplicatiomofthepetitionerforexemption by the impugned order.
The seconc’i contention ofthe learned counsel for the petitioner wasthat under the 9m proviso to section 10(23C){Vi) read with section12AA(2)of theAct,1961,the timelimitfordecision ontheapplication has been fixed and in the ease on hand the decisionwas taken beyond the statutoiy period. Thus, there was a deemedapprovai granting exemption.
Prima facie,it appears that the impugned oro‘er was passed in avery casuai and cryptic manner Without examining ali the relevantfacts ofthe case and aiso the statu’torv time limit. as aibrestated.'i‘hus,the impugneci orcier deseri/es to be set asitte remitting backthe mattertothe respondent/Chief Commissioner todecide thecaseafresh,atterconsideringthereievantdocumentsandaiibrtiing opnortunity ofhezu’nig to the partieS concerned.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22. 10.2009 (Aimexure P/S)is set aside. The Chief Connnissioner of Income Tax, Raipurisdirected to consider the matter a fresh, as aforestated. However, itis made clear that the observations, ifany, made hereinabove, shallnot come in the way of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,Raipur, to decide the matter afresh. in accordance with law,
ln Viewol‘ the above, the writ petitionis allowed to theextentindicated above with no order asto costs.
lSd/-l-,Satish[K.Agnihotri]Judge
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.