Wp/14614/2014 Of Karnataka Examination Authority v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU. DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY "WRIT PETITION NO.14614 OF 2014(TIT) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY, 18 CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD,BANGALORE - 560 012,REBEPRBSBENTBD BY IADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,oR]. S.N. GANGADHARAIARH,AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,|SON OF SRI NINGAPPA. _ PRTITIONER (BY SRI.S. PARTHASARATHI, ADV.,) AND: THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX,BANGALORE - I,CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,|QUEEN’S ROAD, BANGALORE — 560 OO1.. .. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JEEVAN. J. NEERALGI, ADV..,) THIS WRIT PETITION [IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES296 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO|QUASH THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT DATED)30.9.2013 PASSED UNDER SECTION 10(23C) (VI) OFTHR ACT VIDE ANN-EFE THIS|WRITPETITIONCOMINGON|HORPRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE)COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner submits thatpetitioner-charitable institution would be satisfied withan order directing exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv)of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for short ‘Act’ for the.assessment year 2012-13 since what is directed in theorder impugned is exemption for the assessment years.2013-14onwards, although,petitionermadeallapplication for such exemption for the assessment year2013-13.) 2. There is no dispute that petitioner’s applicationfor the assessment year 2012-13 was for exemptionunder Section 10(23C)(vi) asserting to be an educational institution. Although, revenue, for the purposes ofsection 11 and 12 of the ‘Act’ accepted petitioner as acharitable.institutionunderSection12-A(aa), nevertheless, rejected petitioner’s claim for exemptionunder Section 10(23C)(iv) on the premise that noapplication under that provision was made but did sounder Clause (vi) for the assessment year 2012-13, bythe order impugned, while allowing such exemption forthe assessment years 2013-2014 and onwards. 3. If regard is had to the fact that petitioner-institution is admitted as a charitable institution for|purpose of Section 11 and 12 and also for exemptionunder Section 10(23C)(iv) for the assessment year 2013-14 onwards, merely because petitioner did not mentionClause (iv) in the petition, for exemption, by no stretch ofimagination could be denied the benefit which petitioneris entitled to under the ‘Act’ for the assessment year2012-13. Non-mention of the provision of law or a wrong mention of a provision, cannot disentitle anassessee to the benefit of exemption under clause (iv), for.theassessmentyear2012-13.)TheChietCommissioner of Income Tax-respondent was notjustified in denying exemption, a statutory benefit to the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances. 4. In the result, this petition is allowed in part.The order impugned is modified extending the benefit ofexemption to the petitioner under Section 10(23C)(iv) ofthe Act for the assessment year 2012-13, and in allother respects remains unaltered. Sd/-.JUDGE