TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 976
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the period commencing from 1999-2000. Ext.P1 is the order passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes approving the application of the petitioner, for the grant of benefit under Section 10 (23-C) (via) for the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2001-2002, subject to compliance with the conditions stipulated therein. For the period from 2002-2003 to 2004-2005, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 application before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, the respondent herein, and the said application is stated to be pending before the respondent even now. While so, the petitioner on 01.01.2007, preferred Ext.P3 application for continuing the benefit granted to it by Ext.P1 order, for the assessment years from 2005-2006 to 2007-2008. By that time, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion of considering an application for the assessment years 2007-2008 seeking a continuation of the benefit granted in previous years. On that premise, he rejected the application for the assessment year 2007-2008 as well. Ext.P4 dated 23.01.2008 is the order of the respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the assessment years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. In the writ petition, Ext.P4 order of the respondent is impugned, inter alia, on the ground that the 14th Proviso to Section10 (23-C) (via) could not have had any application to the assessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 and, further, that the reasoning of the respondent with regard to assessment year 2007-2008 was faulty since the respondent could not take advantage....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2007-2008, have to be examined. The petitioner is a person who had been granted the benefit under Section 10 (23-C) (via) for the period from 1999-2000 to 2001-2002 and, in the usual course and in the absence of any changed circumstances, he would be entitled to the benefit of the said provision for the subsequent years as well. Notwithstanding this, for reasons best known to the respondent no orders have been passed on Ext.P2 application for the last 10 years. Ext.P3 application dated 01.01.2007 was submitted by the petitioner for the assessment years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. When the said application came up for consideration before the respondent, the respondent relied on the provisions of the 14th Proviso to Section 10 (23-C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a reason for holding the application preferred by the petitioner for the assessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 to be belated. As far as the assessment year 2007-2008 was concerned, the application of the petitioner having been filed on 01.01.2007, complied with the requirements of the newly inserted proviso to Section 10 (23-C) (via). The said application could therefore have been considered on merits by the respondent. The respondent, however, in Ext.P4 order, chose to deny the benefit of the provision to the petitioner on the ground that the application is one which sought a continuation of an exemption earlier granted to the petitioner, and since the petitioner had not shown that exemption was granted for the immediately preceding per....