Ramsahaimal Sahuwala & Sons,Charitable Trust v. The Director Of Income Tax (Exemptions),Annexe Building, Ii Floor,121, Mahatma Gandhi Salai,Chennai – 34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.07.2017 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.17577 of 2004 Ramsahaimal Sahuwala & Sons,Charitable Trust,24, Cathedral Garden Road,Madras – 600 034.Rep. By its Managing TrosteeMr.Vijay Goyal. ... Petitioner Vs. The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions),Annexe Building, II Floor,121, Mahatma Gandhi Salai,Chennai – 34.... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 ofConstitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorarito call for the records in DIT (E) No.212(116)/72, dated24.12.2003 of the respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.SenthilkumarFor Respondent : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, Standing Counsel ORDER Heard Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar, learned counsel forthe petitioner and Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learnedstanding counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petitionpraying for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash theorder passed by the respondent dated 24.12.2003 as it hasimposed a condition while granting renewal of approvalunder Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating thatdonations received on account of hiring of Kalyana Mandapamby different parties cannot be allowed as deduction underSection 80G as it is only Hall rent charges collected in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the name of donations. The period for which renewal ofapproval was granted was from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2005. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner madeelaborate submissions on the factual aspect and submittedthat the impugned condition imposed in the approval orderis wholly unsustainable. 4. On the other hand, learned standing counselfor the Revenue pointed out that for the earlier periodduring which approvals were granted, similar conditionswere imposed and the petitioner did not question suchcondition. 5. It may not be necessary to adjudicate thelegal aspect as focused in the writ petition as the periodof validity of the approval itself came to an end on31.03.2005. Furthermore, when the writ petition wasentertained, an order of interim stay was granted on25.06.2004, which was made absolute on 16.10.2006. Thus, byvirtue of an order of interim stay being in operation, thebenefits flowing from the approval granted have beenavailed. In such circumstances, necessity to adjudicate thecorrectness of endorsement made in the approval order hasbecome academic. Further, the learned counsel for thepetitioner submitted that for the subsequent years, no suchcondition has been imposed by the respondent. 6. In the light of the above, considering thefact that the condition imposed in the impugned approvalorder having worked itself out and the period for which theapproval granted is already over and for the subsequentrenewals, no such condition has been imposed, the writpetition is closed with an observation that the respondentcannot proceed further against the petitioner or otherassesses based on the impugned conditions in the subjectapproval order dated 24.12.2003. No Costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rkm To The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions),Annexe Building, II Floor,121, Mahatma Gandhi Salai,Chennai – 34. +1cc to Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan,, Advocate, S.R.No.47173+1cc to M/S.Mallika Srinivasan, Advocate, S.R.No.47139+1cc to M/S.Mallika Srinivasan, Advocate, S.R.No.47139 W.P.No.17577 of 2004CS/19/07/17