TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 695
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1961 (for short, the 'Act') has been rejected. The application for rectification claiming depreciation was also rejected vide order dated 01.06.2011 (Annexure P7). 2. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that it is duly registered with the Registrar of Firms & Societies, Haryana and running a educational institution, solely for the purpose of imparting education and not for the purpose of earning profit. Vide order dated 26.03.2008 (Annexure P1), approval was granted under Sub-clause (vi) of Clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Act, for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10, subject to certain conditions. An application was, thereafter, filed along with Form 56 D and the relevant documents, regarding the registration certificate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Sunbeam Academy Educational Society Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & others (2014) 365 ITR 0378 wherein a similar view has been taken that there was no requirement to apply afresh after 13.07.2006 and the original order of approval would continue to remain in force. The authorities were, however, given liberty to proceed under the provisos where they felt that the income was not applied in accordance with the same. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the matter is squarely covered against the Revenue. There is no denying the fact that exemption had already been granted to the petitioner earlier, vide order dated 26.03.2008, for a period of 3 years til....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly, the impugned order dated 17.3.2009 was otiose having no effect in law. The impugned order only rejects the application for extension of the approval for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. The original order of approval dated 20.12.2007 still continues to remain in force inspite of the rejection of the petitioner's application by the impugned order dated 17.3.2009. 11. In the light of the circular dated 27.10.2010 issued by the CBDT, the approval granted by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax dated 20.12.2007 being a one time affair continues to remain in force till it is withdrawn under the proviso as extracted aforesaid. Similar view was held by a Division Bench of the Lucknow Bench of this High Court in State I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals from the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment dated 29.1.2010 and the judgments following it are dismissed. We reiterate that the correct tests which have been culled out in the three Supreme Court judgments stated above, namely, Surat Art Silk Cloth, Aditanar, and American Hotel and Lodging, would all apply to determine whether an educational institution exists solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit. In addition, we hasten to add that the 13th proviso to Section 10(23C) is of great importance in that assessing authorities must continuously monitor from assessment year to assessment year whether such institutions continue to apply their income and invest or deposit their funds in accordance with the law ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section with the proviso workable we are of the view that the monitoring conditions in the third proviso like application/utilisation of income, pattern of investments to be made, etc. could be stipulated as conditions by the PA subject to which approval could be granted. For example, in marginal cases like the present case, where appellant- Institute was given exemption up to financial year ending 31.3.1998 (assessment year 1998-99) and where an application is made on 7.4.1999, within seven days of the new dispensation coming into force, the PA can grant approval subject to such terms and conditions as it deems fit provided they are not in conflict with the provisions of the 1961 Act (including the abovementioned monitoring conditions). Wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have taken, namely, that the PA can stipulate conditions subject to which approval may be granted finds support from sub- clause (ii)(B) in the thirteenth proviso." 7. Another aspect from which we find that the impugned order was not justified is that respondent No.2 has placed reliance upon the observations of the Apex Court in the case of P.A.Inamdar (supra), which had been sought to be distinguished by the petitioner on the ground that the judgment was not pertaining to the provisions under the Act relating to Section 10(23C). This Court in Sanatan Dharam Shiksha Samiti Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula 2011 (10) TMI 287, has also held that the said judgment would not be applicable and the principles laid down therein c....