Wp/3948/2013 Of Devarshi Naarada Educational Trust v. Income Tax Commissioner
High Court
19 Feb 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/3948/2013 Of Devarshi Naarada Educational Trust v. Income Tax Commissioner
Date of order
19 Feb 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/3948/2013 Of Devarshi Naarada Educational Trust v. Income Tax Commissioner, the High Court (2013) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 4.For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed, the orderof the 2[nd] respondent bearing Ref.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMAND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAOWP No.3948 of 2013
ORDER
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao)
Heard Sri Unnam Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner andSri J.V. Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax for therespondents.
2.The order of the 2[nd] respondent dt.30-10-2012 declining grant ofregistration for the petitioner under Section 12-AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 isassailed in this writ petition challenging, inter alia, on the ground that no reasonsare recorded for declining grant of registration for the petitioner, an EducationalTrust, for availing benefits of exemption under the provisions of the Act.
3.The learned Standing Counsel concedes the position that theimpugned order as communicated to the petitioner contains no reasons. Hestates that by an administrative lapse, page Nos.1 and 3 have beencommunicated and the 2[nd] page of the order which contains the reasons wasinadvertently not communicated. In any event, it is axiomatic that anadministrative lapse is a one that is communicated to the addressee, theimpugned order as communicated is bereft of reasons. This is a fatal infirmitywhich we expressed in the order.
4.For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed, the orderof the 2[nd] respondent bearing Ref. No.DIT(E)15 (04) 12A&80G/12-13,
dt.30-10-2012 is unsustainable and is accordingly quashed. The matter isremitted to the 2[nd] respondent with a direction to pass a fresh order expeditiouslyand in any event within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order and communicate a decision on the petitioner’s application forregistration under Section 12AA of the Act. No costs.
____________________________
JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
Date :19-02-2013 kvr
___________________________________
JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.