Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Mallikarjun School Society, Village And Post Aincholi, Pithoragarh

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CLMA DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION NO. 1502 OF 2018 IN SPECIAL APPEAL No. 89 of 2018 Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ….Appellant. Versus M/s Mallikarjun School Society, Village and Post Aincholi, Pithoragarh Through its Secretary, Mr. Rajul Paneru, S/o Late Triloki Ballabh Paneru, R/o Village & Post Aincholi Pithoragarh. ….Respondent Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, Advocate for the respondent / writ petitioner. Dated: 19.03.2018 Coram: Hon’ble K.M. Joseph, C.J.Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Heard Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mohit Maulkehi, learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioner on the Application for condonation of delay. 2. There is delay of 32 days in filing the present Special Appeal. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Application for condonation of delay must be allowed. Accordingly, the Application for condonation of delay will stand allowed and the delay of 32 days will stand condoned. 4. Today, we have rendered a judgment in Special Appeal No. 64 of 2018. 5. We heard Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mohit Maulkehi, learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioner. 6. The basic issue, which arises for consideration, is the one covered by our judgment in the aforesaid Special Appeal. No doubt, the objects, for which the Society was formed, are slightly different, but as far as the issue at hand is concerned, it will not make any difference. Following the judgment passed today in Special Appeal No. 64 of 2018,we allow the Appeal, set aside the portion directing exemption to be granted under Section 10(23C)(vi), instead we direct the appellant to consider and take a decision afresh in the light of the observations in the judgment passed in Special Appeal No. 64 of 2018 and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court American Hotel & Lodging Association Educational Institute v. CBDT reported in(2008) 10 SCC 509, which was followed in the case of Queen’s Educational Society vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in(2015) 8 SCC 47. This must be done after giving opportunity to the writ petitioner and the process must be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment before the appellant. (Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) (K.M. Joseph, C.J.) 19.03.2018 Rathour