2018 (1) TMI 1113

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct). By the impugned order dated 26th July, 2017, the petitioners' application for condonation of delay in filing its return of income for Assessment Year 2014-15 and claiming refund, was rejected.   3. The petitioner is a Public Trust, duly registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 since 1971 and also in possession of Registration under Sections 12A and 80G of the Act. The petitioners Trust is involved in charitable activities and is running a Hospital along with a Medical Research Centre at Nashik as well as a dispensary at Mumbai. 4. The petitioners being a registered Charitable Trust claims exemption from tax under Section 11(1) of the Act for the year ended 31st March, 2014 i.e. Assessment Year 2014-15. For the firs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate. 6. On 24th April, 2017, the office of the respondent no.1 Commissioner of Income Tax issued a notice to the petitioners in response to the petitioners' application i.e. notice called upon the petitioners to submit the following particulars : "(i) the claim is in accordance with Inst. No.13/2006 dated 22.12.2006 and earlier guidelines of CBDT dated 9th June, 2015. This includes : (a) Evidence for the claim (b) Evidence for the TDS (c) Computation of Income Tax (ii) The claim is within 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. (a) The claim is correct and genuine (b) There is a case of genuine hardship (iii) Income is not assessable in the hands of any other person (iv) The refund has arisen as a result of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ondent no.1 does not deal with the tests to be satisfied for the delay being condoned as indicated in the notice dated 24th April, 2017. Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained. On the other hand, Mr. Kotangle, learned Counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order. 9. We find that the impugned order does not deal with the various criteria which the petitioners were asked to satisfy for consideration of its application for condonation of delay as set out by order dated 24th April, 2017 issued by the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption). The impugned order has in fact proceeded to deal with the merits of the petitioners' claim for expenses in determining its income and claim for exemption under Section 11 of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated in the notice dated 24th April, 2017 issued by the office of the respondent no.1, has not been dealt with in respect to each of the heads.   11. Further, in this case, the petitioner Trust is engaged in charitable activities as it is not only registered under Section 12A of the Act but also under the Bombay Public Trust Act. The petitioners income is exempted from tax under Section 11 of the Act and consequently the refund of the tax deducted at source of Rs. 7.13 lakhs would be utilized by the petitioners' Trust in discharge of its charitable objects particularly in running a Hospital at Nashik and a dispensary in Mumbai. The impugned order completely ignores the decision of this Court in the case of Sitaldas K. Motwani (sup....