The Union Of India v. The Director Of Income Tax (Exemptions) 121, Mahatma Gandhi Salai Chennai – 600 034

W.P.No.14036 of 2002 Pukhraj Salecha Jain Trust35, Madhavaram High RoadPerambur, Chennai – 600 011Repreented by its Managing TrusteeP.Jayanthilal .. Petitioner 1.The Union of India Represented by the Chairman Central Board of Direct Taxes North Block New Delhi. v. 2.The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) 121, Mahatma Gandhi Salai Chennai – 600 034. 3.The Assistant Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) III Chennai. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling forthe records of the second respondent Director of Income Tax(Exemptions) in his file No.DIT(E) No.2(160)/98-99, dated18.2.2002, quashing the same and directing the secondrespondent DIT(E) to afford the petitioner Trust an opportunityof being heard in respect of its request for condonation ofdelay in filing the application f for registration and pass afresh order under section 12AA of the Act. For Petitioner : Mr.T.N.Seetharaman For Respondent : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy Standing Counsel https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Heard Mr.T.N.Seetharaman, learned Counsel appearing forthe petitioner and Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned StandingCounsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition toissue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for therecords of the second respondent in his file No.DIT(E) No.2(160)/98-99, dated 18.2.2002 and to quash the same and directthe second respondent DIT(E) to afford the petitioner Trust anopportunity of being heard in respect of its request forcondonation of delay in filing the application forregistration and pass a fresh order under section 12AA of theAct. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that even withoutaffording an opportunity to the petitioner-Trust the secondrespondent has passed the impugned order. 4. On a perusal of the letter dated 12.01.2002, it couldbe seen that the petitioner-Trust had requested for personalhearing to substantiate the ground stated for condonation ofdelay and for registration of the Trust from 01.04.1988. AVakalat on behalf of the petitioner-Trust was also filed on12.01.2002. However, the second respondent without affording anopportunity to the petitioner-Trust, passed the impugned orderdated 18.2.2002. 5. In these circumstances, since the second respondenthad passed the impugned order against the principles of thenatural justice, I am of the considered view that the impugnedorder has to be set aside and the matter should be remittedback to the second respondent for fresh consideration. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.2.2002 isset aside and the matter is remitted back to the secondrespondent for fresh consideration and the second respondent isdirected to consider the case of the petitioner-Trust afterhearing the submissions on behalf of the petitioner-Trust andpass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed.No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1.The Chairman Union of India Central Board of Direct Taxes North Block New Delhi.2.The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) 121, Mahatma Gandhi Salai Chennai – 600 034.3.The Assistant Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) III Chennai.+1cc to Mr.T.N.Seetharaman, Advocate, S.R.No.6819+1cc to Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, Advocate, S.R.No.7592W.P.No.14036 of 2002 vgi(CO)srg(15/02/2016) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/