Case LawHigh Court › Wp/3948/2013 Of Devarshi Naarada Educati...

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
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan