TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court partially allows writ petition, remands for fresh consideration on educational purpose requirement</h1> <h3>All Angels Educational Society Versus The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax</h3> All Angels Educational Society Versus The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax - [2016] 388 ITR 475 Issues:1. Rejection of application for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act due to delay in filing and non-fulfillment of educational purpose requirement.Analysis:Issue 1: Rejection based on delay and educational purpose requirementThe petitioner, a registered Society operating an Educational Institution, filed an application seeking exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2012-2013. The respondent issued a show cause notice citing two grounds for potential rejection: delay in filing and the Society's non-compliance with the educational purpose clause. The respondent ultimately rejected the application on both grounds. The petitioner challenged the rejection, arguing that if the delay was the basis for rejection, the merits should not have been considered. The petitioner had amended the Trust's objects, aiming to resubmit the application. The respondent contended that the rejection was valid due to the delay and non-compliance with the Act's requirements. The Court examined the issue of whether the respondent could decide on the merits after rejecting the application based on delay.Court's Analysis:The Court referred to previous judgments, including the decision in Shri Anand Rishi Jain Society case, emphasizing that rejection based on delay should not lead to a review of the merits. The Court noted that the respondent's decision to consider both grounds post-rejection based on delay was improper. The Court highlighted the lack of statutory power to condone the delay under Section 10(23C)(vi) but acknowledged its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution to consider peculiar circumstances. The Court cited the Roland Educational and Charitable Trust case, emphasizing that statutory provisions override general laws like the Limitation Act. The Court agreed with the respondent's rejection based on delay but directed a fresh consideration for the subsequent assessment year, 2013-2014, due to the peculiar circumstances and the Trust's amended objectives.Conclusion:The Court partly allowed the writ petition, affirming the rejection based on delay but setting aside the non-compliance with the educational purpose requirement. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration for the assessment year 2013-2014, considering the amended Trust objectives. The Court declined to condone the delay but directed the respondent to reevaluate the application in line with the law and the Trust's amendments.
TaxTMI 