2014 (2) TMI 182 - HC - Income Tax

Rejection of application for approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act Registration of Educational Institution Held that - The application filed on behalf of the petitioner was not for the awarding exemption for the year 2011-12 but for the assessment year 2012-13 - even though the application for exemption for the financial year 2012-13 was filed before September 30, 2013, even though technically it should have been filed after April 30, 2013, but it makes no difference inasmuch as the application reached before the competent authority within time there was no substance in the submission made on behalf of the revenue that in any such situation, the revenue were well within rights to reject the application as pre-mature thus, the revenue is directed to consider the application filed for seeking exemption for the financial year 2012-13 Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of application for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) for the assessment year 2011-12 due to belated filing.
2. Rejection of application for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) for the assessment year 2012-13 due to premature filing.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of application for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) for the assessment year 2011-12 due to belated filing:

The petitioner challenged the order dated April 29, 2013, by the Income-tax Officer (OSD) (Tech) acting for the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, rejecting the application for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) for the assessment year 2011-12. The application was filed on March 28, 2012, which was considered out of time as it should have been filed between April 1, 2011, and September 30, 2011. The petitioner argued that the application was not for the assessment year 2011-12 but for 2012-13, and thus within the statutory prescribed time period. The court noted that the application indeed mentioned the assessment year 2011-12 but clarified that it was not being filed for that year due to the absence of a managing committee. The court found that the application was not intended for the year 2011-12, thus the rejection on this ground was incorrect.

2. Rejection of application for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) for the assessment year 2012-13 due to premature filing:

The petitioner's application for the assessment year 2012-13, filed on March 28, 2012, was rejected as premature. The application should have been filed after April 30, 2013, but it was submitted earlier. However, the application reached the competent authority on May 4, 2012, before the deadline of September 30, 2012. The court emphasized that the application was received within the permissible time frame and should not be rejected as premature. The court also referenced the petitioner's clarification that the application was for the financial year 2011-12 (assessment year 2012-13) and thus within the statutory period.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the application for the assessment year 2012-13 was filed within the statutory period, despite being submitted earlier than technically required. The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the application for exemption for the financial year 2012-13 within one month. The court clarified that this direction would not interfere with the respondents' authority to dispose of the application according to the law, except on the point of limitation.

Separate Judgments:

No separate judgments were delivered by the judges in this case.