9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under any obligation to deal with the same. We are in agreement. Even though the petitioner diligently pursued similar application for the period subsequent to the one in question, but did not take any steps for pursuing the application purportedly filed on 31 st of October, 2002/ refiled on 4th of February, 2003. For more than eight years petitioner allowed the matter to be slept over. Revenue does not admit filing of the application (Annexures P-1 and P-2), but only avers that neither any application was filed nor was it pending with the competent authority. In view of disputed question of fact, applying the ratio laid down in Commissioner of Income Tax Anr. v. Karnataka Planters Coffee Curing Work Private Limited [ 2016 (11) TMI 893 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of October, 2002. On record there is another application stated to have been filed on 4th of February, 2003. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax I, Patna has dealt with the petitioner's claim, seeking exemption, vide impugned order dated 26th of August, 2011 (Annexure-4) which is extracted as under: Ishan International Educational Society, Malahi Pakri, Kankarbagh, Patna-800020 (the applicant) has filed an application dated 12th May, 2011 enclosing therewith photocopy of an application in Form No. 56D dated 30/10/2002 for grant of exemption u/s 10(23C) (vi) (via) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2002-03 filed on 04/02/2003 before Commissioner of Income-tax, Patna-I, Patna. The stipulation as per 14th proviso to section 10(23C) in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner for the subsequent periods were dealt with by the competent authority. However, with respect to the year in question, it is the case of the Revenue that the application filed, if any, was not before the competent authority, and as such, none other than the authorized authority was under any obligation to deal with the same. We are in agreement. That apart, we notice that even though the petitioner diligently pursued similar application for the period subsequent to the one in question, but did not take any steps for pursuing the application purportedly filed on 31 st of October, 2002/ refiled on 4th of February, 2003. For more than eight years petitioner allowed the matter to be slept over. Here only we may clarify that the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
