TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 3
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y learned counsel for the Income Tax Department that the post of CIT (Exemption) has been created, who is now the competent authority in such matters. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 28.04.2011 by which approval for exemption under Section 10 (23C) (vi) of the Income Tax Act has been refused and directing the respondent to accord approval for exemption. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner claims to be running educational institution in the nature of a school from Class 1 to 8 and 11 to 12. It is not in dispute that a search was made in the school premises under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act and certain incriminating documents were seized. Admittedly, the petitioner itself approached the settlement co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aining to the assessment year 2010-11 but admittedly the audited account for the said year was not produced. After considering all aspects of the matter, the Director General accepting the recommendation of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (central), rejected the application for approval for exemption after treating the same as one under Section 10 (23C) (vi) and not under Sub-clause (iv) of the said section. So far as consideration of the matter as one for exemption under Section 10(23C) (vi) of the Act is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that it has been rightly considered under said sub-clause (vi) and not sub-clause (iv). Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to assail the order of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....30th day of September as per the receipt. From the application, it is evident that it was filed on 31.03.2010 whereas even according to the impugned order the date of filing of the application was 01.04.2010. In our view, the difference of one day or two day would make no difference so far as the applicability of the rule for filing the application is concerned and the application filed whether on 31.03.2010 or 1.04.2010 both would be well within the period of limitation prescribed for submitting the application. In this regard the order of the Director General does not appear to be correct. However, the Director General has not stopped on the point of limitation only and considered the same on merits also. With regard to the merits of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ree years. The provision of 30th day of September of the assessment year concerned as the cut-off-date for filing of the application has been clearly given so that the balance sheet and audited account of the said year could also be given. The petitioner not only failed to supply initially the audited accounts and balance-sheet for the financial year which pertained to the said assessment year but despite opportunities granted, the same was not produced nor the books of account were shown and thus rejection of the claim on the said ground cannot be said to be contrary to law. Learned counsel for the petitioner also sought to assail the impugned order on the ground that the mere fact that certain loose documents were found and an applicatio....