TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act. However, we would like to deal with the present case at this stage only on the ground that the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had no occasion to deal with the case of the petitioner in absence of sufficient materials i.e. final balancesheet showing income and expenditure account upto 31.03.2014 though the order has been passed on 20.10.2014. Chief Commissioner of IncomeTax, before passing the impugned order dated 20.10.2014, ought to have perused the relevant materials with regard to the income and expenditure of the University and ought not to have decided the case on the reasons assigned in the impugned order having insufficient materials to come to the conclusion that the University is established for earning profit from im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 10 (23C)(vi) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act ). Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the respondent authority has filed an affidavitinreply, to which, a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. 2 The brief facts arise from the record are as under: 2.1 The petitioner University has been established under the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009 in the year 2012, and accordingly, the name of the petitioner was entered into the Schedule of the Universities Act, 2009. 3 The present petitioner University submitted a Form No.56D under Rule 2CA of the Income Tax Rules and requested the authority to grant exemption under Section 10 (23C) (vi) of the Act for the Assessment Year 20132014 and onwards. The Chief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... students. He would submit that the funds received by the University are used only for the benefit of the University in accordance with the provisions of the Universities Act, 2009. He would submit that the case of the petitioner University was under the provisions of Section 10 (23C) (vi) of the Act, and therefore, the authority ought not to have refused exemption to the petitioner University. 6 He would submit that all these specific contentions were raised before the Chief Commissioner of IncomeTax, however, the respondent officer has dealt with the case of the petitioner University on an extraneous consideration, and therefore, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside, and it may be held that the petitioner is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Sponsoring Body would mean that the University has been established for profit only is without any basis. He would submit that Section 41 of the Universities Act, 2009 provides a procedure for winding up of the Private University. Wherein the State Government has all power to accept the case of the University, and, therefore, it cannot be said that the case of the petitioner University does not fall under Section 10 (23C)(vi) of the Act. 7 In addition to the above submissions, by relying upon the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Queen s Educational Society v. Commissioner of IncomeTax reported in [2015] 372 ITR 699 (SC), Mr. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that if the object of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Body and all the actions, which the University intends to take, would be subjected to in consultation with the President. Clause 21 of the First Statutes of the University, and particularly Clauses 21(1) and 21(5), the admissions are granted to those students on merit basis or on the basis of means which shall be determined on economic condition or the situation of the students. These provisions are contrary to the provisions of the Universities Act, 2009. He would therefore submit that the authority has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner University has been established for profit, and therefore, the petition be dismissed. 9 We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. 10 It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2009 while dealing with the case of a University established under the said Act. The respondents authority ought to have considered the powers of the State Government provided under Section 43 of the Universities Act, 2009. Section 43 of the Universities Act, 2009 empowers the State Government to take action against the Universities in certain circumstances. 12 Therefore, in our opinion, the impugned order requires to be quashed and set aside only on the ground referred hereinabove and accordingly, quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Chief Commissioner of IncomeTax for a fresh consideration with regard to the application dated 21.11.2013 submitted by the petitioner University for grant of certificate under Section 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
