Vivek Shiksha Samiti v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkula

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.747 of 2013 (O&M)Date of decision:25.03.2015 Vivek Shiksha Samiti. — Petitioner Versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula ...... Responden CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present:Mr.Sandeep Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate, for the respondent. ++++ S.J.Vazifdar, Acting Chief Justice(Oral): 1,Rule. Rule returnable and heard finally.|The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.09.2012 (AnnexureP5), passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula, rejecting itsapplication for exemption, filed under Section 10(23C)(v1) of the Income TaxAct, 1961. onThe impugned order observes that after debiting the depreciationetc., the profit margin is 25.05%, which is higher than the limit of 15%, under theSaid provision. However, as rightly argued on behalf of the respondent, the orderdoes not state that this is for more than 5 years. Disallowance can only be if thisposition continues for a period of more than 5 years. The order is also passedinter aliaon the ground that the petitioner did not produce certain documentssuch as vouchers. 4Mr.Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that vide theSAILESH RANJAN2015.04.01 16:40motice dated 25/29.03.2012 (Annexure P3), the respondent called upon theI attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document petitioner to furnish certain documents. The same were furnished, as is evidentfrom the petitioner's letter (Annexure P4). The petitioner's grievance is that the impugned order should not have been passed due to the non-compliance of thesaid notice dated 25/29.03.2012. Further, the respondent did not, upon receipt ofthe reply, allege that the particulars have not been furnished. 5 It is not necessary to go into this aspect in any further detail. Thereappears to have been some communication gap in this regard. The ends ofjusticewould be served by granting the petitioner, an opportunity of producing thedocuments required by the respondent. 6 In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 24.09.2012(Annexure P5) is set aside and the matter is remanded for a fresh decision, aftergiving the petitioner an opportunity of producing any document(s) that therespondent may require. We are informed that the matter will, now, be decidedby the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh. The matter shallbe decided, in accordance with law, including on the basis of the judgment passedby the Supreme Court inCA No.5167 of 2008titled |M/s Queen's EducationalSociety Vs. Commissioner ofIncome Tax,decided on 16.03.2015. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (S.J.Vazifdar)Acting Chief Justice 25.03.20155)+:352 (G.S.Sandhawalia)Judge