9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner is assessed at Lucknow, as such there was no occasion for serving notice at Bareilly. - held that - as such liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the CCIT ventilating its grievances. - 1799 (MB) of 2008 - - - Dated:- 8-10-2009 - Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J. and Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner's Counsels - J.N. Mathur and Amit Jaiswal Respondent's Counsel - D.D. Chopra JUDGMENT Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the validity of decision taken by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow, by means of which application of the petitioner for grant of exemption under Section 10 (23-C) (vi) of the Income Tax Act has been rejected. Brief background of the case is that the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt writ petition has been filed. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, and in paragraph 10 thereof full details has been sought to be given in respect of service of notice and the action taken has been sought to be justified. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed, and therein the statement of fact mentioned in the counter affidavit has been disputed and that of writ petition has been reiterated, and it has been submitted that notices were not properly served on the petitioner and no proper opportunity of hearing was given and the service of notice through courier cannot be said to be valid service; the petitioners have no knowledge of any personal service at Lucknow office with regard to the date of hearing fixed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uirements of sub-clause (vi) of Section 10 (23-C) of the Income Tax Act were not satisfied, issued notice on 20.12.2007 fixing 27.12.2007 as the date for hearing in the matter. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit specific statement of fact has been mentioned that Income Tax Inspector was deputed to serve the letter/notice dated 20.12.2007 at Lucknow office of the petitioner. The report of the Income Tax Inspector mentions that he visited the place/office of the trust along with show cause letter at 5.45 P.M. He found that the office was closed, and a servant working in the Nari Niketan College told that the Manager would be available on Monday, the 24th December, 2007. In addition to the above, copy of the said letter was also sent at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nge-II, Lucknow , informing and intimating him the reasons of their non-appearance at the time when case was called out instead of rushing to this Court, the petitioners ought to have substantiated before the authority concerned that the educational institutions in question exist solely for the purposes of education and not for the purposes of profit, and income derived is utilized for the purpose, for which institution in question is established. Consequently, in the facts and circumstances of the case as the entire proceedings against the petitioner are exparte, and petitioners are contending that for valid reasons they could not appear on the date fixed, as such liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the Chief Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
