Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (12) TMI 976

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... viso - the Proviso is intended to ensure that any application preferred after 01.06.2006, for the purposes of grant of exemption or continuation thereof, has to be made during the financial year immediately preceding the AY from which the exemption is sought. The Proviso could not have been cited as a reason for holding the application preferred by the petitioner for the assessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 to be belated - the findings relating to the AY 2007-2008 are also legally unsustainable since, even if the revenue was of the opinion that the benefit of Section 10 (23-C) (via) could not be continued for the AY, nothing prevented him from treating the application as a fresh application for the grant of the benefit u/s 10(23-C)(v .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... application is stated to be pending before the respondent even now. While so, the petitioner on 01.01.2007, preferred Ext.P3 application for continuing the benefit granted to it by Ext.P1 order, for the assessment years from 2005-2006 to 2007-2008. By that time, however, the provisions of Section 10 (23-C) (via) had been amended by Finance Act, 2006 by adding Proviso 14 therein which read as follows: Provided also that in case the fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in the first proviso makes an application on or after the 1st day of June, 2006 for the purposes of grant of exemption or continuance thereof, such application sh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d any application to the assessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 and, further, that the reasoning of the respondent with regard to assessment year 2007-2008 was faulty since the respondent could not take advantage of his own inaction, in not passing any orders on Ext.P2 application that was pending before him. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent wherein Ext.P4 order is sought to be justified by placing reliance on the 14th Proviso to Section 10 (23-C) (via), that was inserted by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 01.06.2006. It is further pointed out that the claim for extension of the benefit granted in earlier years, for the assessment year 2007-2008, also could not be entertained since the petitioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or the assessment years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. When the said application came up for consideration before the respondent, the respondent relied on the provisions of the 14th Proviso to Section 10 (23-C) (via), that has been insertedwith effect from 01.06.2006, to hold that the application submitted by the petitioner for the assessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 are belated. In my view, the said finding of the respondent in Ext.P4 order cannot be legally sustained insofar as it stems from an erroneous interpretation of the applicability of the said proviso. It will be seen from a reading of the Proviso, which is extracted above, that the Proviso is intended to ensure that any application preferred after 01.06.2006, for the pu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ground that the application is one which sought a continuation of an exemption earlier granted to the petitioner, and since the petitioner had not shown that exemption was granted for the immediately preceding period, the benefit sought for could not be granted even for the assessment years 2007-2008. In my view, the findings in Ext.P4 relating to the assessment year 2007-2008 are also legally unsustainable since, even if the respondent was of the opinion that the benefit of Section 10 (23-C) (via) could not be continued for the said assessment year, nothing prevented him from treating the application as a fresh application for the grant of the benefit under Section 10 (23-C) (via) for the assessment year 2007-2008. Thus, the reasons given .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates