TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a recommendation for the grant of exemption, it was incumbent upon the 4th respondent to state the reasons that weighed with him while taking the decision for not to grant exemption to the assessee – the order passed by the 4th respondent does not disclose any reason for his decision - A quasi-judicial authority, who is entrusted with the task of adjudicating upon the rights of a person, cannot p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The petitioner thereafter filed an application in Form No.56 for exemption under Section 10(23C) (iv) of the Income Tax Act, for the assessment years 1989-1990 to 1995-1996. It would appear that by Ext.P7 communication, the 3rd respondent forwarded the application to the 4th respondent, recommending the case of the petitioner for the issuance of a notification granting exemption. In the meanwhil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0(23C) (iv) of the Income Tax Act. Insofar as Ext.P13 order does not cite any reasons for the rejection of the petitioners claim, the petitioner preferred Ext.P14 representation before the 4th respondent seeking a reconsideration of the matter. No decision was taken on the said representation and hence the petitioners approached this Court inter alia for a direction to quash Ext.P13 order and for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any reason for his decision. A quasi-judicial authority, who is entrusted with the task of adjudicating upon the rights of a person, cannot pass orders that are ambiguous and vague by not stating the reasons that informed his decision. In that view of the matter, for the sole reason that it is a non-speaking order that violates the rights of the petitioner, I quash Ext.P13 order of the 4th respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
