Sanatan Dharam Shiksha Samiti, Hansi v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkula

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 23765 of 2011 Date of Decision: 8.2.2017 Sanatan Dharam Shiksha Samiti, Hansi ....Petitioner. Versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN. PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner,in CWP Nos. 23765 of 2011 and 24909 of 2012.in CWP Nos. 23765 of 2011 and 24909 of 2012. Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner,in CWP Nos. 16104 of 2009, 18811 of 2012 and 1414 of 2014. Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner,in CWP No. 25112 of 2012. Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1.This order shall dispose of a bunch of six writ petitions bearingCWP Nos. 23765 of 2011, 16104 of 2009, 18811, 24909, 25112 of 2012and 1414 of 2014 as according to the learned counsel for the parties, theissue involved therein is identical. For brevity, the facts are being extractedfrom CWP No. 23765 of 2011. 2.CWP No. 23765 of 2011 has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorariGurbachan Singh2017.04.03 14:03I attest to the accuracy andfor quashing the order dated 26.9.2011 (Annexure P-9) passed by theauthenticity of this documentHigh Court Chandigarh respondent rejecting the application dated 16.9.2010 (Annexure P-4) filedby the petitioner for exemption/approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2010-11.Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondent togrant exemption to the petitioner under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. 3.The facts, in short, necessary for adjudication of the presentwrit petition as narrated therein may be noticed. The petitioner is a Societyregistered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with the Registrar ofSocieties vide Registration Certificate dated 16.9.1992 (Annexure P-1). Itis an educational institution for educational purposes as is discernible fromthe Memorandum of Association (Annexure P-2). The petitioner had beenregularly filing its income tax returns including the returns (Annexure P-3Colly) filed for the last three years. Since it had been for educationalpurposes and not for the purposes of earning profit, the petitioner wasentitled to exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. The petitionervide application dated 30.9.2010 (Annexure P-4) applied for exemptionunder Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act from the assessment year 2010-11along with the requisite documents. In response thereto, the Income TaxOfficer, vide notice dated 29.7.2011 (Annexure P-5) asked the petitioner toappear in person. The petitioner vide letter dated 17.8.2011 (Annexure P-6)submitted a detailed reply pleading that it is imparting education andcharitable activities are covered under Section 2(15) of the Act. The IncomeTax Officer, Hisar vide letter dated 20.9.2011 (Annexure P-7) raised certainother queries and the petitioner explained the queries vide letter dated22.9.2011 (Annexure P-8). The respondent vide order dated 26.9.2011(Annexure P-9) rejected the application of the petitioner for grant ofGurbachan Singh2017.04.03 14:03I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this documentHigh Court Chandigarh exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. Hence, the present writpetition. 4.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and haveperused the record. 5.Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Pine Grove International Charitable Trust v.Union of India (2010) 327 ITR 273 which was affirmed by the ApexCourt. Further, reliance was also placed upon the decision of the SupremeCourt in M/s Queen's Educational Society v. Commissioner of IncomeTax, AIR 2015(SC) 3253. exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. Hence, the present writpetition. 4.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and haveperused the record. 5.Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Pine Grove International Charitable Trust v.Union of India (2010) 327 ITR 273 which was affirmed by the ApexCourt. Further, reliance was also placed upon the decision of the SupremeCourt in M/s Queen's Educational Society v. Commissioner of IncomeTax, AIR 2015(SC) 3253. 6.On the other hand, the order declining the grant of benefitunder Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act was sought to be justified by placingreliance upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in VisvesvarayaTechnological University v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(2014) 362 ITR 279 which was affirmed by the Apex Court inVisvesvaraya Technological University v. Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax (2016) 384 ITR 37 (SC). 7.Besides the aforesaid, both the parties had also relied upon theproposition of law laid down by this Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax, Jalandhar-I, Jalandhar v. Gulab Devi Memorial Hospital Trust,Jalandhar, ITA No. 602 of 2010 decided on 23.12.2016. In view of theaforesaid decisions, it was urged by learned counsel for the parties thatkeeping in view the factual matrix involved herein, the issue is required tobe adjudicated in their favour. 8.After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, it isconsidered appropriate to remit the matter to the respondent who shall on CWP No. 23765 of 2011 the basis of facts involved in each case apply the legal principles enunciatedin the above noted pronouncements. Accordingly, we set aside theimpugned order and remand the matters to the respondent to decide afreshto which there was no serious opposition by the learned counsel for therespondent. 9.Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed and the order dated26.9.2011 (Annexure P-9) passed by the respondent is set aside.Correspondingly, the impugned orders passed in other writ petitions noticedin para 1 of the order are also set aside. The matters are remitted to therespondent for deciding afresh in accordance with law after affording anopportunity of hearing to the parties. Needless to say that anythingobserved herein before shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on themerits of the controversy. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE February 8, 2017(RAMENDRA JAIN)gbsJUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/NoYes