IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 325 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 10, 2009 Shri Ram Jan Kalyan Shiksha Samiti …Petitioner Versus Union of India and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Ravi Shankar, Advocate (in CWP No. 325 of 2009) Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate (in CWP No. 1469 of 2009) Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate (in CWP No. 5452 of 2009) for the petitioner(s). Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 1469 of 2009, 325 and 5452 of 2009 as common question of law and facts are involved. The petitioners have claimed exemption under Section 10 (23C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) in respect of various assessment years as is evident from the following table:- Sr. No. CWP No. Assessment Year 1. 1469 of 2009 2006-07 2. 325 of 2009 2005-06, 2006-07 3. 5452 of 2009 2006-07 CWP No. 325 of 2009 The question whether the period of limitation stipulated by adding proviso XIV to Section 10(23C) (vi) of the Act, would apply to the aforesaid assessment years, has already been concluded by us in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in C.W.P. No. 21542 of 2008 (M/s Ajanta Educational Centre v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and another) decided on 4.8.2009. In that case reliance has been placed on Circular No. 14 of 2006, dated 28.12.2006, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), which itself has clarified that the amendment would apply only from the Assessment Year 2007-08. The circular has been found to be binding by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case and reliance has been placed on various judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court like P.R. Prabhakar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore, [2006] 284 ITR 548; Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, (2004) 10 SCC 1; and Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 488. Following the same principle of law and precedent, instant petitions are allowed. The orders impugned in the instant petitions are hereby quashed. The concerned Chief Commissioner of Income-tax are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners afresh on merit for grant of exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) and (via) of the Act in their respect cases. These petitions stand disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) 2 CWP No. 325 of 2009 August 10, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 3