2009 (10) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he petitioner claims that it is registered educational charitable trust, and its primary object is to provide and promote the education and research in various fields. In furtherance of its object to provide education, the petitioner has established educational institutions including Engineering and Medical Colleges. The petitioner moved an application in Form 56-D seeking approval of the prescribed Authority, viz. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow under sub-clause (vi) of Section 10 (23-C) of the Income Tax Act. Said application was accompanied with income expenditure statement of the assessee for the financial years ending on 31.03.206, 31.03.2005 and 31.03.2004. On the said application being moved, report was submitted by the Inc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ixed on 27.12.2007, and institution in question was not at all running for profit. After pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties, as institution in question is not at all being run for profit. Sri Mudit Agrawal, Advocate, holding brief of Sri J.N. Mathur, Advocate, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case impugned order has been passed without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as such the order in question is in breach of the principles of natural justice, and further on merits also said order is not at all sustainable. Countering the said submissio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... at Lucknow address of the trust through courier. Apart from this, as the institutions were located at Bareiilly. Letter was also sent to Bareilly on 20.12.2007 and it was served on Sri Atul Kumar Misrha, the Accounts Officer through an officer of the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly. Petitioner in the writ petition as well as in rejoinder affidavit has tried to contend that notice was served on the petitioners. It has been reiterated that the petitioners have got its head office at Lcuknow and the petitioner is assessed at Lucknow, as such there was no occasion for serving notice at Bareilly. The fact of the matter remains that in the present case opportunity of hearing was sought to be provided to the petitioner by....