9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner is a public charitable trust. The petitioner-trust has set up an institution called "Indian Institute of Head and Neck Oncology" which according to the petitioner is rendering yeoman service to the society. Under the scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961, subject to certain conditions and on compliance of certain requirements of the Act, the income of the charitable trust is exempt from payment of income-tax under section 12A read with sections 11/12 ibid. The petitioner claiming the benefit under section 12A ibid made an application on March 24, 1994/March 30, 1994, to the Commissioner of Income-tax. An application seeking condonation of delay in filing the said application was also made on November 27, 1995. The Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Commissioner observed while rejecting the application : "I have heard learned counsel and gone through the facts of the case. There is no dispute over the fact that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal, passed the impugned order ex parte without giving the trust an opportunity of being heard about the reasons which compelled the assessee to file the application for registration under section 12A late, and such order may not be sustainable in the eyes of law but the question is whether a succeeding Commissioner of Income-tax can sit over the judgment of his predecessor and review his order under the guise of making rectification under section 154. In my opinion, an answer to the question is emphatically 'no'. The succeeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y application be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Commissioner for rehearing on the condonation of delay application after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned orders and prayed that no interference is called for in any of the orders impugned and hence they be upheld. Having heard learned counsel for, the parties and having perused the record of the case, I am inclined to accept one of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner which has force. In my opinion,, the learned Commissioner was. not right in his approach when he observed that he being a succeeding Commissioner cannot sit over the judgment of his predecessor and review hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mainly questioned the correctness of the order passed on the rectification application. The petitioner now cannot be allowed to challenge the correctness of the Commissioner's order dated November 27, 1995, independently for the first time in writ after five years. In other words, the petitioner has to question the legality of the order dated November 27, 1995, only in rectification proceedings for which t hey have already made an application and suffered its rejection. I find substance in the observation of the learned Commissioner when he in detail observed as to what led the petitioner to wake up from slumber for making an application seeking rectification after the lapse of two years. A perusal of the order dated March 24, 2000, indic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
