Rajasthan Technical University, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota v. Income-Tax, Officer, Ward- 1(2), C.r. Building, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1874 / 2011 Rajasthan Technical University, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota, Through Its Finance Officer, Sh. S.N Sharma S/o Sh. Ratan Lal Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, 691-A, R.k Puram, Kota, (Rajasthan) ----Appellant Versus 1. Income-Tax, Officer, Ward- 1(2), C.R. Building, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota 2. Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R. Building, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota 3. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, Delhi-110 001 4. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001 5. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Secretariat, Jaipur ----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1875 / 2011 Rajasthan Technical University, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota, Through Its Finance Officer, Sh. S.n Sharma S/o Sh. Ratan Lal Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, 691-A, R.k Puram, Kota, (Rajasthan) ----Appellant Versus 1. Income-Tax, Officer, Ward- 1(2), C.R. Building, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota Road, Kota 2. Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R. Building, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota 3. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, Delhi-110 001 4. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001 5. State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Secretariat, Jaipur _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar For Respondent(s) : Ms. Parinitoo Jain. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGHJudgment / Order 04/09/2017 1.By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner has preferred thewrit petition challenging impugned order dated 26.07.2011whereby the respondent Income-Tax Officer has over-ruled theobjection of the petitioner that petitioner University is exemptedunder Section 10(23C) (iiiab) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(forshort 'the Act') and has directed the petitioner to file copy ofincome tax return and audit report for the year underconsideration. 3. From the submission, pleadings and documents, it appears thatfor assessment year 2007-08, a notice dated 08.07.2011 wasgiven to petitioner-University. The petitioner filed itsreply/objection petition dated 12.07.2011 seeking exemption fromthe applicability of the Act under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act.Learned Income Tax Officer vide its order dated 26.07.2011 cameto a conclusion that the petitioner is not exempted under Section10 (23C)(iiiab) of the Act. 4.It is contended that the reasons assigned by the Income TaxOfficer for not accepting the objection of the petitioner are illegal and without jurisdiction, therefore, this Court should interfere inthe said order and quash the same. 5.The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition onthe ground of alternative remedy. 6.Counsel for the respondent has relied on the decision of theSupreme Court in the case of Jeans Knit (P) Ltd. Vs. DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax & Ors. :: (2017) 145 DTR (SC) 16wherein it has been held as under:- 4.It is contended that the reasons assigned by the Income TaxOfficer for not accepting the objection of the petitioner are illegal and without jurisdiction, therefore, this Court should interfere inthe said order and quash the same. 5.The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition onthe ground of alternative remedy. 6.Counsel for the respondent has relied on the decision of theSupreme Court in the case of Jeans Knit (P) Ltd. Vs. DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax & Ors. :: (2017) 145 DTR (SC) 16wherein it has been held as under:- “2.We find that the High Courts in all these caseshave dismissed the writ petitions preferred by theappellant/assessee herein challenging the issuance ofnotice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961and the reasons which were recorded by the AO forreopening the assessment. These writ petitions aredismissed by the High Courts as not maintainable.The aforesaid view taken is contrary to the law laiddown by this Court in Calcutta Discount LimitedCompany vs. ITO. [(1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC)]. We,thus, set aside the impugned judgments and remitthe cases to the respective High Courts to decide thewrit petitions on merits. 3.We may make it clear that this Court has notmade any observations on the merits of the cases, i.e.the contentions which are raised by the appellantchallenging the move of the Income Tax Authorities tore-open the assessment. Each case shall be examinedon its own merits keeping in view the scope of judicialreview while entertaining such matters, as laid downby this Court in various judgments.” 6.In that view of the matter, the appeals are allowed and weremit back the matter to the learned Single Judge. However, wemake it clear that the matter is remitted back to the learnedSingle Judge only in view of the decision of the Supreme Court.We are not expressing any opinion on merits of the case and thelearned Single Judge will decide the same on merits. It will open for both the department to file reply/objection. Till the matter isdecided by the learned Single Judge, no recovery from theappellant shall be effected. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Pdaiya/56-57