Sanjay Siksha Samiti v. Chiefcommissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipurand Others

// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANBENCH AT JAIPUR ORDERINS.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9894/2009 Sanjay Siksha Samiti Vs. ChiefCommissioner of Income Tax, Jaipurand Others Date of Order ::: 11.02.2011 PresentHon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Prakul Khurana forShri Sanjay Jhanwar, counsel for petitionerShri J.K. Singhi withShri Anuroop Singhi, counsel for respondents#### By the Court:- This writ petition has been filed by assesseeagainst order passed by respondent no.1 ChiefCommissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur, dated 18.05.2009,by which assessee was not granted exemption forassessment year 2004-05 on premise that requirement offiling application within financial year has beenintroduced with effect from 01.06.2006 and this being aprocedural section, has retrospective effect.Application was rejected assigning additional reasonthat assessee has not submitted required details andhas also filed application after end of assessment yearand therefore application under Section 10(23C)(vi) forassessment year 2004-05 was rejected. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner isthat aforesaid impugned order was passed withoutapplication of mind inasmuch as petitioner submittedcomposite application for assessment years 2004-05,2005-06, 2006-07; while application has been grantedfor respective two financial years, rest has been declined. The respondents have already recovered entiretax amount. Shri J.K. Singhi, learned counsel forrespondents has contested the plea set up by petitionerand submitted that petitioner did not cooperate inproviding required material despite number of letters,whereas fact is that petitioner has produced allmaterial which is evident from fact that Commissionerof Income Tax allowed application for subsequent twoassessment years. Learned counsel for respondentdepartment, opposed writ petition and submitted thatpetitioner failed to furnish requisite details inrespect to number of letters and adopted non-cooperative attitude. He completely failed to submitdocuments for assessment-year 2005-06 despite severalopportunities. He made particular reference to letterdated 11.08.2005 by which he was required to furnishdocuments. Learned counsel has submitted thatopportunity was granted to petitioner on as many asseven different dates but neither anybody appeared ontheir behalf nor document was produced and thereforeapplication was rightly rejected. Having regard to fact that already respondentshave granted exemption for respective two assessmentyears 2005-06 and 2006-07 to petitioner, petitioner isan educational institution and for same purpose it iscovered by exemption provisions and already applicationhas been submitted by petitioner and further thatrespondents have now submitted before this court thatexemption was denied on ground of non-furnishingrequired documents/details, and not merely on accountof expiry of limitation and also considering the fact that recovery has been made by respondents, if notfully but at-least substantially, it is deemedappropriate that the matter is reconsidered by theChief Commissioner of Income Tax. In the circumstances,impugned order is set-aside. The matter is remanded toChief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur forreconsideration on merits. The petitioner is directedto produce all material documents which he wants torely upon within two weeks before the ChiefCommissioner of Income Tax, who may pass fresh orderwithin three months, if necessary, after providingopportunity of hearing to petitioner. Recovery ofamount except already made shall remain stayed subjectto final order that may be passed by the ChiefCommissioner of Income Tax. Application shall be decided on merits andshall not be rejected on the ground of delay. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//