9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the applicant had filed an application under section 10(23C)(vi) before the Commissioner of Income-tax on June 15, 2008. Under such circumstances, the official records indicate that the application under section 12A is withdrawn. When the time limit for considering the said application is already complete and the matter has been considered by this court we do not think that the learned single judge has committed any error of law in dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner as it is evident that the stand taken by the petitioner regarding pendency of the application for registration under section 12A is not true and correct. Since such an application is not pending disposal before the authority concerned, the relief sought fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r which exhibit P2 application was filed. The learned single judge did not interfere with the orders passed by the authorities on the basis that the issue had already been covered by the earlier judgments of this court by which it was found that the application submitted by the petitioner as exhibit P2 was no longer in force. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, would argue that though it is stated that the earlier application submitted by the petitioner as exhibit P2 was withdrawn, in effect, the appellant did not withdraw the said application. The said application was pending consideration and no final orders were passed. In the meantime, the petitioners had applied under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act which was rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resh application for registration under section 12A need not be interfered. The main question involved in the review petition was whether the observation of the court that the application is withdrawn should be modified or not. The learned single judge did not interfere with the said order. 7. Pursuant to exhibit P9 judgment and the review order at exhibit P10, exhibit P11 order was passed on October 24, 2011, by the Commissioner of Income-tax clearly indicating that exhibit P2 application is not pending. In fact, in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent authority also they have relied upon a communication issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Thiruvananthapuram, on December 2, 2009, which, inter alia, reads as unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n application under section 10(23C)(vi) before the Commissioner of Income-tax on June 15, 2008. Under such circumstances, the official records indicate that the application under section 12A is withdrawn. 9. When the time limit for considering the said application is already complete and the matter has been considered by this court in the earlier judgment which is extracted above, we do not think that the learned single judge has committed any error of law in dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 10. In the result, we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the learned single judge. But it is made clear that if the appellant had preferred any appeal against the application for exemption under section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
