TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccounts audited and file the return for assessment year 2011-2012. Charitable activity / purpose - held that:- petitioner had not been charging processing fees since 01.02.2009 which was the ground of rejection for earlier years. - The application fees received by the Board was from sale of application forms and not for income of the Board but were only incidental charges and reliance was placed upon advancement of the object of general public utility which falls under the charitable acts under Section 2 of the Act. - matter remanded back for reconsider these factors. - CWP No. 9728 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 16-7-2012 - Ajay Kumar Mittal and G.S. Sandhawalia, JJ. Ms. Radhika Suri for the Petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted on the ground that the audit report was filed under Form 10B and not under 10BB vide the order dated 26.03.2008 which was set aside in CWP No.9339 of 2008. 3. Petitioner, thereafter, again approached the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana Region, Panchkula with an application for exemption for decision on merits under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act for assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 2010-11. Respondent No.1-Chief Commissioner sought some clarifications which were submitted. Respondent No.1 allowed the application for exemption for the year 2008-09 but declined for the assessment year 2009-10 vide order dated 29.09.2008 on the ground that the petitioner was charging processing fees ranging from 0.1% to 0.5% of the project ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 010-11. 4. Respondent No.1, in its reply, defended the impugned order on the ground that the application filed by the petitioner-Society for exemption for the assessment year 2009-10 had already been rejected on 20.08.2009 and no fresh grounds had been brought out. The application of the petitioner was rejected as the activities of the petitioner-Society were not charitable and that the application had been filed on 16.04.2010 and was required to be decided within a period of 12 months as per un-numbered Proviso No.09 of Section 10 (23C)(iv). Respondent No.1, while passing the order, had failed to consider the plea of the petitioner that the balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2011 was under compilation and could not be produced as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... get its accounts audited and file the return for assessment year 2011-2012. 6. The second reason given by respondent No.1 that the petitioner's case had already been rejected for the assessment years 2009-10 2010-11 vide order dated 20.08.2009 and nothing new had been brought thereafter as compared to the earlier years also does not stand judicial scrutiny. A perusal of the communication dated 11.04.2011 shows that the petitioner had not been charging processing fees since 01.02.2009 which was the ground of rejection for those years. The application fees received by the Board was from sale of application forms and not for income of the Board but were only incidental charges and reliance was placed upon advancement of the object of gene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
