Shyam Lal Panwar Anandi Devi Memorial Charitable Trust, Jaipur v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, C.r. Building,Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur.bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6622/2014 Shyam Lal Panwar Anandi Devi Memorial Charitable Trust, Jaipur,Through Its Chairman And Managing Trustee Nirmal Panwar S/oShri Shyam Lal Panwar, aged about 52 years, Residing at 135,Ram Nagar Extension, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R. Building,Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur.Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1,Jaipur.Jaipur. 3. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block,Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi.Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Prakul Khurana, Adv.For Respondent(s): Mr.Shantanu Sharma, Adv. with Ms.Bhavana Ladha, Adv.For Respondent(s): Mr.Shantanu Sharma, Adv. with Ms.Bhavana Ladha, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 23/04/2024 1.This petition is filed seeking quashing of orders dated26.04.2012 and 27.03.2014 rejecting the application filed underSection 10 (23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Actof 1961’) and the rectification application respectively. 2.The brief facts are that the petitioner is a registeredTrust. During the financial year 2010-2011 the petitioner filed anapplication under Section 10 (23C) of the Act of 1961. Notice wasissued by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Act, Jaipur for16.04.2012 to show cause as to why the application be notrejected as the Trust was not solely for the educational purposes.On failure of the petitioner to respond to the notice, theapplication was rejected vide order dated 26.04.2012. Thepetitioner filed an application under Section 154 annexing anaffidavit of Kishan Agarwal. It was deposed that the father ofdeponent was seriously ill and expired on 17.04.2012 and thehearing could not be attended. The rectification application wasdismissed. Hence, the present writ petition. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that theapplication was rejected on the wrong premises that the Trust isnot solely for the educational purposes. The exemption wasapplied under Section 10 (23C)(vi) of the Act of 1961, for theincome being received from an institution established solely foreducational purposes. It is further argued that the order dated26.04.2012 is a non-speaking order. 4.Learned counsel for the respondent defends theimpugned order and submits that as per the aims and objects, theTrust is involved in activities other that education. 5.The petitioner could not avail the opportunity of hearingdue to sickness and death of father of authorized representative ofthe Trust dealing with the matter. 6.Without commenting upon merits of the case, theimpugned orders are set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the official concerned to decide the application of the petitionerfiled under Section 10 (23C) of the Act of 1961 in accordance with law. 7.The petition is allowed. (BHUWAN GOYAL), J (AVNEESH JHINGAN), J HS/RIYA/13 Reportable:- Yes