9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1999. The second Respondent vide order dated 7th June, 2001, Annexure P-17, rejected the same by passing the following order: It is observed from the Auditor's report that the RBI's permission under Section 31(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 to acquire the land on lease from Mumbai Metropolitan Religion Development Authority (MMRDA) at a consideration of Rs. 7,608,516/- has not obtained to the School. The school has filed and returns of income for the first time with DDIT (E) (2) Mumbai for the year 1999-2000 under Section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act. The School has not filed the returns of income tax the earlier years. The returns filed for A.Y 1999-2000 is Form No. 3 and not in form No. 3A which is for charitab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Educational Institute v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors (2008) 301 ITR 86 (SC) has laid down the procedure as well as the criteria by which the approval/benefit is to be granted. It is submitted that for the subsequent years the same authority has granted approval. 4. Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the Revenue in support of the order passed by the second Respondent submitted that the order reflects reasons and, therefore, the same does not warrant interference. It is contended by her that if the factual matrix is scrutinized, there can be no trace of doubt that the approval has been rightly rejected. It is her further submission that an application for review was not maintainable and, therefore, it was necessary on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtain institutions cannot be granted approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act but the said statement cannot be dwelled upon as there is no appropriate finding by the second Respondent after affording opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. In the absence of the same, if we allow ourselves to say so, the statement on behalf of the Revenue clearly cannot be appreciated. We are of the considered opinion that the order dated 7th June, 2001 passed by the second Respondent, Annexure P-17, deserves to be quashed and the matter to be remitted for reconsideration and accordingly we so direct. The second Respondent shall consider the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and decide the issue on the anvil of the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
