TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 1157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollowing order: " It is sought to be contended by Mr. Murarka, learned Advocate for the petitioner, that though this Court directed to hear out the application afresh but unless it is specified that the application is for seeking exemption for the years 2005-2008 and 2011-2014, the authorities may interpret the said order differently than what is intended by this Court. It is also sought to be contended that a modification is required for clarifying the operative portion of the order to eradicate any ambiguity that may arise at the time of consideration of the application. After reading the said Judgment and Order, this Court does not find any substance in the submissions of Mr. Murarka. At page 5 of the said judgment the Court recorded two points agitated before this Court in the said writ-petition for its adjudication. The first point relates to an order dated March 21, 2013 which was passed on an application seeking exemption for the period 2011-2014 and the second point argued was that an application seeking exemption for the period 2005-2008,has not been considered as yet. After recording the reasons, this Court did not find any substance in the first point, meaning thereby ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve phenol removal in fixed bed continuous column, Color removal from effluent system, Absorptive removal of heavy metal in batch system, Hydrodynamics of multistage bubble column, Dechlorination of pentachlorophenol on activated carbon. In this regard, please furnish these research articles clearly bringing out the details of author of these articles i.e., whether they are permanent employees of IICE & if so, quantum of salary paid to them along with copy of contract agreement regarding terms of employment. (10) It is further seen on perusal of documents that IICE for future research projects has decided to get the research work done by inviting research proposals from students studying in various colleges/universities and IICE would be providing funds for the activity. As Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act read with Rule 5D(2) of I.T. Rules lays down that research activities should be conducted by itself, merely providing financial aid for research projects does not fulfill the parameters of Income-tax Act- 1961 for grant of approval u/s. 35(1)(ii). Please comment. (11) Also furnish copies of Income-tax assessments where orders u/s. 143(3) of the Act has been passed in last 3 years a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed by the CBDT on the ground that CBDT was not the "Central Government". Therefore CBDT is not the prescribed authority to decide the matter. We fail to understand how the matter will again be heard by Member (IT) CBDT as alleged in your letter under reply. You have alleged that Union Finance Minister is the prescribed authority. Please let us have a copy of the order of the Central Government appointing "Union Finance Minister" as the prescribed authority of Central Government for the purpose of Sec. 35(1)(ii) of the said Act. We further fail to understand how CBDT could hear and decide the matter when according to you Union Finance Minister is the prescribed authority. Therefore, hearing intended before CBDT is ultra virus and unlawful and violative of the order of the Hon'ble Court. We further dispute that the time to pass the order as directed by the Hon'ble Court will expire on 12-04-2013 calculated from Director of Income Tax (Exemption) receipt of certified copy on 14-02-2013. The order was communicated in full by our aforesaid letter duly received in CBDT in September 2012 itself. Hence, your present proceedings are violative of the order of the Hon'ble Court for w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one person hears and another decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality. We, therefore hold that the said procedure followed in this case also offends another basic principle of judicial procedure." The prayers in the writ petition are for a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 21st March, 2013 amongst others; a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw or to recall the order dated 21st March, 2013 amongst others and a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to act in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice and to consider, hear and to decide the renewal application of the petitioner under section 35 of the Income Tax Act for the periods 2005-2008 and 2011-2014. The application for the period 2011-2014 was rejected by the subject order dated 21st March, 2013. In the writ petition there is no challenge thrown to the legality, validity and/or constitutionality of the rules prescribed for dealing with an application under section 35 of the Income Tax Act. Rule 5 (C) is the relevant rule, which contains 13 Sub-rules. The rules applicable for our present purpose are rules 8 to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by evidence that the original was furnished to the Commissioner of Income Tax or the Director of Income Tax as the case may be. Rules 4 and 5 provide for the time within which such applications have to be disposed of. Rule 6 provides for the eventuality where the application is lacking in material particulars or is not accompanied by relevant annexures. In that case the applicant may be called upon to furnish such particulars or such documents as may be considered necessary. In the event, such papers or particulars are not furnished the application may be treated as invalid and in that case under Rule 7 the Central Government may pass an order treating the application as invalid. In case, however, the application is complete in all respects the Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director of Income-tax as the case may be shall make such enquiry as may be deemed necessary by him and shall send his recommendation to the Member (IT) for grant of approval or rejection of the application before the expiry of a period of three months to be reckoned from the end of month in which the application form was received. In this case the petitioner was offered an opportunity of hearing before "....