@ rC/§ 13$; IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE smaLE BENCH FOR CHHATTusaARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIONmNo. gm of201o K/Tahanadi Education Society C-15, Shailendra Nagar, Opp. BOB ATM, Before Tagore Nagar Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) through Secretary Shailendra Jain, 21 South Avenue Choubey . Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Versus 1. Chief Commissioner of income Tax New Central Revenue Buiiding, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Before: Hon'ble the Chief Justice and his companion iudqes of the Hon'ble Hiqh Court of Judicature for Petitioner Respondentg v Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of suitable directions orders or writs including writs in the nature of Mandamus Certiorari etc. The humble petition of the petitioner abovenamed most gL HIGH COURT OF CHHA’E'TESGARH AT BILASPUR ‘W‘Rl’l‘ PETEI‘IQN {T} N0. 1944 0f2010 Mahanadi Education Society. VERSUS Chief Commissioner oflnoome Tax PETIHONER RESPONDENTS FETITION UNBER ARTICLE 226 OF 'i‘HE CON STH‘UTION OF iNDiA Present: SB Hon’Me Smi Sat§s31 h Agnmoénl J. Shri Neelabh Dubev. Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Raj eev 9h1‘i‘vastzwa. Staiidmg Counsel for the reSpondents. i... URD£R (GRALS (Passed on 213‘ day of June, 2011) Chailenge in this petition is to the order dated 22,102009 (Azmexui‘e P/6) passed by the Chief‘Commissioiler oflncome Tax, Raipui‘, under section 10(23C)(\7i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, W19 Act, 1961 ) The case ofthe petitiorier is that the petitioner made an applicatioxi for grant of exemption Ii’om income tax under section 10(23C)(Vi) of the Act? 1961 for the assessment year 2009~2009 onwards in Form No. 56-19. In support ofthe application, the auiiited aecounts for the financial year 20G4-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 with other i‘eievant {ioeunients were aiso fiieé. The respondent/Chief Commissioner, Without considering the purpose of investment in itmastzueture (Leveiopment 0n the land and building which were required for etiucation purpose held that the petitioner was not entitieé to exemption under the aforesaid provision, thus, the application of the petitioner was rejected. It is further submitted that the Supreme Court in {slamw Academy of Education & Another v. State ofKnrnamm & Othersj. had held that the fee Structure for each institute must be fixed keeping in mind the infrastructure and facilities avaiiabie anti investment. the salaries paid to the teachers and other future pian for expansion and for betterment of the institution etc. Thus, making investment 1‘ (“20033 6 SCC 697 m in building or improvemem of land for the betterment of educational' institution comes Within the ambit of educational purpose. The Commissioner has not oonsiéered all the facts in uazail before rejecling the applicatiom of the petitioner for exemption by the impugned order. The seconc’i contention ofthe learned counsel for the petitioner was that under the 9m proviso to section 10(23C){Vi) read with section 12AA(2) of the Act, 1961, the time limit for decision on the application has been fixed and in the ease on hand the decision was taken beyond the statutoiy period. Thus, there was a deemed approvai granting exemption. Prima facie, it appears that the impugned oro‘er was passed in a very casuai and cryptic manner Without examining ali the relevant facts ofthe case and aiso the statu’torv time limit. as aibrestated. 'i‘hus, the impugneci orcier deseri/es to be set asitte remitting back the matter to the respondent/Chief Commissioner to decide the case a fresh, atter considering the reievant documents and aiibrtiing opnortunity ofhezu’nig to the partieS concerned. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22. 10.2009 (Aimexure P/S) is set aside. The Chief Connnissioner of Income Tax, Raipur is directed to consider the matter a fresh, as aforestated. However, it is made clear that the observations, ifany, made hereinabove, shall not come in the way of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur, to decide the matter afresh. in accordance with law, ln View ol‘ the above, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above with no order asto costs. J A L)b. l Sd/- l Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Aniit -,