Wp/7201/2010 Of Ravi Rishi Educational Society v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARIAND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANARAO WRIT PETITION NO : 7201 of 2010 Between: Ravi Rishi Educational Society, G2, SBI Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad,Rep. By its Selection Chairman, Sri N.Raja Babu AND ..... PETITIONER The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Officer,Hyderabad –1, IT Towers, AC Towrs, Hydrabadand others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER:(per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the orderdated 16.10.2009 passed by the first respondent as illegaland arbitrary and to consequently set aside the sameholding that the petitioner is entitled to benefit under Sec. 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act and direct the firstrespondent to grant approval in terms of Sec. 10(23C)(vi) ofthe Income Tax Act, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner is an Educational Society registeredunder The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Areas) PublicSocieties Registration Act, 1350 Fasli and an assessee onthe rolls of the third respondent. The society is running acollege in the name of Aurora’s Scientific Technological &Research Academy, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad and since theassessment year 2003-3004, it is filing returns claimingexemption under Sec. 12A of the Income Tax Act.Accordingly, the petitioner made an application on 6.2.2006for the grant of exemption from 2003-2004 onwards andsince nothing was heard from the respondents, thepetitioner submitted another representation dated13.10.2008. Thereafter, the first respondent issued showcause notice mentioning objections in certain clauses of theaims and objects and posted the matter for hearing on14.10.2009. But to the utter surprise of the petitioner, itreceived the order dated 16.10.2009 on 22.10.2009, to theeffect that there was no response to the show cause noticeissued by the first respondent, without verifying as to theservice of the show cause notice on the petitioner. Thus, theexemptions claimed by the petitioner society was rejected. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Standing Counsel for Income Tax. The singular grievance of the petitioner is that theshow cause notice said to have been issued by the firstrespondent with regard to the objections in the aims andobjects of the petitioner society, was not served on thepetitioner and without service of the notice, the impugnedorder came to be passed, which is in violation of theprinciples of natural justice. Therefore, in the facts andcircumstances of the case, without adverting to any of thecontentions raised herein, we are of the considered viewthat an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to putforth its case before the respondents. Therefore, whilesetting aside the order impugned herein, the petitioner ispermitted to put forth its case pursuant to the show causenotice issued by the first respondent within a period of twoweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order andthe first respondent is directed to consider and pass ordersafresh within a period of four weeks thereafter, providingopportunity to the petitioner to put forth its case. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari April 26, 2010CC within a week//BO//MAS __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao