Cwjc/2106/2016 Of Bihar Combined Enterance Competitive Examination Board v. Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemptions)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2106 of 2016 ====================================================== Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board having its officeat IAS Bhawan, Near Airport, P.O. Bihar Veterinary College, P.S. PatnaAirport, District- Patna through its Officer on Special Duty, Anil KumarSinha, Son of late Ramdeo Prasad, resident of Road No. 10, East Patel Nagar,P.O. P.S. Shastrinagar, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemptions), having its office at 2[nd] FloorCentral Revenue Building, Beerchand Patel Marg, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================Appearance :For the Petitioner/s: Mr.D.V.Pathy, Advocate Mrs. Manju Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s: Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 16-12-2021 Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): (i) that the order dated 29.12.2015 for theassessment year 2014-15 passed by therespondent (as contained in Annexure-4) underSection 10 (23C) (vi) and (via) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 be quashed. (ii) for a direction to the respondent to grantapproval under Section 10 (23C) (vi) and (via) ofthe Income Tax Act. (iii) for granting any other relief(s) to which thepetitioner is otherwise found entitled to. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for theparties at length. 3. The primary issue which arises forconsideration is as to whether the present petitioner, namelyBihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Boardwould be entitled for exemption under the provisions of Section10(23)(vi) which partly reads as under:- Section 10(23-C) (vi) 10. Incomes not included intotal income.- In computing thetotal income of a previous year ofany person, any income fallingwithin any of the followingclauses shall not be included-… (23-C) any income received by-any person on behalf of …(vi) any university or othereducational institution existingsolely for educational purposesand not for purposes of profit,other than those mentioned insub-clause (iiiab) or sub-clause(iiiad) and which may beapproved by the prescribedauthority; or 4. We notice that vide impugned order dated 29.12.2015, the competent authority has rejected the petitioner’s claim for grant of such exemption. 5. In support of his submission, Shri Pathy,learned counsel for the petitioner invites our attention to thedecision rendered by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 20296 of 2010,titled as Bihar State Text Book Publishing CorporationVersus the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Patna & anr. on04.09.2020 as also earlier decision rendered by this Court inM.A. No.425 of 2010 titled as Bihar State Text BookPublishing Corporation Vs. The Commissioner of IncomeTax-I, Patna, referred to therein. Also reliance is placed uponthe decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in Council forthe Indian School Certificate Examinations versus DirectorGeneral of Income-Tax (Exemptions), [2014] 362 ITR 436(Del). 6. On the other hand, Mrs. Archana Sinha @Shahi seeks reliance upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble theApex Court in Visvesvaraya Technological University versusAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2016 (12) SCC 258. 7. However, in response thereto, Shri D.V.Pathy,learned counsel for the petitioner refers to and relies upon theother decisions rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court in IslamicAcademy of Education vs. State of Karnataka, (2003) 6 697; Assam State Text Book Production and PublicationCorporation Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax,(2009) 17 SCC 391 ; and in Queen’s Educational SocietyVersus Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 8 SCC 47. 8. Having perused the impugned order, we are of 6. On the other hand, Mrs. Archana Sinha @Shahi seeks reliance upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble theApex Court in Visvesvaraya Technological University versusAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2016 (12) SCC 258. 7. However, in response thereto, Shri D.V.Pathy,learned counsel for the petitioner refers to and relies upon theother decisions rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court in IslamicAcademy of Education vs. State of Karnataka, (2003) 6 697; Assam State Text Book Production and PublicationCorporation Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax,(2009) 17 SCC 391 ; and in Queen’s Educational SocietyVersus Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 8 SCC 47. 8. Having perused the impugned order, we are of the considered view that the authority below, while concludingthat the petitioner was not an educational institution, did nothave complete material, including as to whether it wasgenerating any profit by taking fees for conducting theexamination. 9. After the matter was heard for some time, learned counsel for the parties were ad-idem that the matter can be remanded back to the authority for consideration afresh, byaffording opportunity to the parties to place all material,enabling the authority to arrive at a decision in accordance withlaw. 10. We have no hesitation in acceding to such request. As such, dispose of the petition in the following terms: (a) The impugned order dated 29.12.2015 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption),Patna is quashed and set aside;Patna is quashed and set aside; (b) The matter is remanded back to the appropriate/competentauthorityfor consideration of the petitioner’s applicationafresh; afresh; (c) The parties are directed to appear before thesaid authority on 03.01.2022 when a date shallbe fixed, enabling the parties to place onrecord additional material;said authority on 03.01.2022 when a date shallbe fixed, enabling the parties to place onrecord additional material; (d) Adequate opportunity of hearing shall beafforded with full compliance of principles ofnatural justice and the authority shall decidethe matter afresh by passing a speaking order,copies whereof shall be supplied to the parties;afforded with full compliance of principles ofnatural justice and the authority shall decidethe matter afresh by passing a speaking order,copies whereof shall be supplied to the parties; (e) Proceedings can be got conducted through adigital mode, if so found necessary;digital mode, if so found necessary; (f) Liberty reserved to the parties to take recourseto such remedies, if so required and desired, asper law;to such remedies, if so required and desired, asper law; (g) We only hope and expect the authority todecide the matter expeditiously and preferablywithin the current financial year and positivelybefore 31[st] March, 2022;decide the matter expeditiously and preferablywithin the current financial year and positivelybefore 31[st] March, 2022; (h) All issues are left open. 11. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. 12. Interlocutory Application, if any, shall stand disposed of. (Sanjay Karol, CJ) Sujit/Ashwini ( S. Kumar, J) AFR/NAFRCAV DATEUploading Date17.12.2021Transmission Date