Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for approval under section 10(23-C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was liable to be interfered with on the ground of inadequate opportunity of hearing and breach of natural justice.
Analysis: The application for exemption was considered under section 10(23-C)(vi) for assessment purposes. The record showed that the prescribed authority issued notice, attempted service at the Lucknow office, sent a copy by courier, and also caused service at the Bareilly office where the educational institutions were located. The petitioner's case was that notice was not properly served and that it had no effective opportunity to explain that the institutions were run solely for education and not for profit. The Court treated the matter as one where an opportunity had been afforded but not availed, and observed that the petitioner ought first to have approached the authority with its explanation for non-appearance instead of directly invoking writ jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The challenge to the rejection order was not accepted, and the writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to move the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for fresh consideration in accordance with law.