Cwp/2857/2022 Of Ashoka University v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH 116 CWP-2857-2022(0&M)Decided on :24.02.2022 Ashoka University ...Petitioner VS) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others ...-Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present:Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate for the petitioner, kok AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral)CM,2452,CWP,2022 1)This application has been filed for placing on record certain documents mentioned in the application. 2.For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed and documents are taken on record. Main case onBy this petition the petitioner has challenged the rejection of itsobjections to a notice for income escaping assessment. | 4.The case of the petitioner is that it is a university set up by anentity calling International Foundation for Research and Education (forShort 'IFRE'). As per the petitioner, this Foundation is a special purposevehicle which was established by a group of philanthropic persons to set up this university. The Foundation has no independent income, but thearrangement is that the Foundation takes care of all the expenditure of theuniversity and all the income which the university generates is also creditedto the account of the Foundation. CW P-2857-2022(0&M 5.That Foundation has filed its returns and has been assessed.However, despite this fact, the petitioner-university has been issued thenotices and the objections have been rejected in a very mechanical mannerby merely observing that the assessment of the Foundation is of norelevance and the income and expenditure of the university as an individualentity has to be seen. Moreover, the reason taken 1s that the University hasnever filed its returns. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitionerStates that the petitioner is only desirous of showing that no income which ithas generated has escaped assessment and for that purpose, had placed onrecord the entire assessment of the Foundation and if the respondent hadjust cared to examine the assessment record of the Foundation, this factwould have been cleared. In our opinion, the plea that all the facetsbrought forward by the petitioner and all the material put forward shouldhave been considered while deciding the objection are well-merited.6.Notice of motion.T Mr. Denesh Goyal, Senior Standing Counsel appears andaccepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 8 Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents statesthat he does not even have a copy of the petition and moreover, it is tritelaw that a writ petition would not be maintainable in such circumstances.In our opinion, the nature of order that we propose to pass would not bean infraction of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. We haveconsidered the issue and set aside the impugned orders (Annexures P-5to P-8) with a direction to the respondent No.1 to redecide the objections CW P-2857-2022(0&M filed by the petitioner after considering all the points raised therein. 9)For this purpose, parties through counsel are directed to appearbefore respondent No.1 on 2.3.2022 and on any other date when herequires their presence. He is directed to decide the issue on or before31.03.2022 and till then the further proceedings on the notice shallremain stayed, 1Q.Petition stands disposed of with above-said observations.11)Since the main case has been decided, the pending civilmiscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of, (AJAY TEWARI)JUDGE