Wp/42372/2015 Of Vikas Educational Academy v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
07 Jan 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/42372/2015 Of Vikas Educational Academy v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
07 Jan 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp/42372/2015 Of Vikas Educational Academy v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2016) decided the matter.
Decision: The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHYW.P.No.42372 of 2015
ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)
Heard Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner,and Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income TaxDepartment, and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at thestage of admission.
The proceedings under challenge is the order dated 09.09.2015whereby the petitioner’s application, seeking exemption under Section10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) for theassessment year 2014-15, was rejected. The 1[st] respondent issued anotice on 03.09.2015 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why theirapplication, seeking exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act,should not be rejected. The petitioner was informed that they shouldsubmit their explanation to the office of the respondent by 11.09.2015. While the petitioner had time till 11.09.2015 to submit their objections, theimpugned order came to be passed even prior thereto on 09.09.2015. It isevident, therefore, that the petitioner has been denied a reasonableopportunity of being heard in this regard.
Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income TaxDepartment, would fairly state that a fresh notice would be issued to thepetitioner and, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard, an orderwould be passed afresh in accordance with law.
The impugned order dated 09.09.2015 is set aside, and the 1[st]respondent/appropriate authority is permitted to issue a notice afresh, givethe petitioner an opportunity of being heard and, thereafter, pass a fresh
order in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The miscellaneouspetitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be noorder as to costs.
i
_____________________________
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J
Date: 07.01.2016JSU
___________________________________
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANAND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
JSU
W.P.No.42372 of 2015
Date: 07.01.2016
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.