CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 04 MAD CK 0392

Researh Foundation of Jainology vs Central Board of Direct Taxes Department of Revenue Ministry of Finance Government of India, Director of Income Tax and The Union of India (UOI)

Madras High Court · Decided on 6 April 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Jaichandren, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 1619 of 2011 and M.P. No''s. 1 and 2 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 326 words

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Senior Counsel representing the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2.

The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel representing the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that, sufficient opportunity had not been given to the Petitioner to put forth its submissions to the first Respondent, as no opportunity of personal hearing had been given to it, as per Rule 5C (12) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, it has been submitted that it would suffice ,if the impugned order of the first Respondent, dated 30.09.2010, is set aside and the Petitioner is permitted to submit the relevant documents, if any, and if the Petitioner is given an opportunity of personal hearing, before an order is passed by the first Respondent, with regard to grant of renewal of approval of exemption, from 01.04.2006 onwards.

3.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents had submitted that sufficient opportunity had been given to the Petitioner, as per the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 23.04.2010, made in W.P. No. 995 of 2010. However, he had admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing had been given to the Petitioner, as per Section 5C (12) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

4.

In such circumstances, the impugned order of the first Respondent, dated 30.09.2010, is set aside. The Petitioner is permitted to produce all the necessary documents in support of its claims, before the first Respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On production of such documents, the first Respondent shall pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks, thereafter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.

5.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.