IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9397 OF 2009 Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and another. ... Petitioners. V/s. Union of India and another. ... Respondents. Vaibhav Joglekar i/b. S.S.Kanetkar for the petitioners. Vimal Gupta for the respondents. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATED : 6th July 2010. P.C. : Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. perused petition. 3. This petition is directed against the order dated 24th September, 2009 passed under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act” for short) rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking renewal of approval under section 80G of the Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order is in breach of principles of natural justice since his written submissions were not considered by the Commissioner. Mr.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents- Revenue tried to support the impugned order but found it difficult to take his submissions to the logical end because of discrepancies in the order-sheets and facts mentioned in the impugned order. 5. Having heard rival views, it is not in dispute that, initially, the application for renewal was to be heard on 16th September, 2009 and it was adjourned to 23rd September, 2009. Order-sheets available in this behalf do not show as to what transpired on 23rd September, 2009. The matter appears to have been taken for hearing on 24th September, 2009. From the order-sheets, it appears that the petitioner after making oral submissions requested for adjournment till 10th October, 2009 to file written submissions but the said request was turned down since period to decide application was to expire. The impugned order was passed on 24th September, 2009 itself. 6. The impugned order mentions that some time was granted to the petitioner- assessee to file detailed submissions. According to the petitioner- assessee, detailed submissions were filed on 25th September, 2009. However, by that time, the order was already passed on 24th September, 2009. Petitioner, thus, submits that the impugned order is in breach of principles of natural justice since it was passed without considering written submissions though time to file the same was granted. 7. It cannot be said that no time was granted to file written submissions. In para-6 of the impugned order it is mentioned that time to file detailed reply was granted. It was, thus, obligatory on the part of the authority to wait for reply and consider the same before passing the impugned order. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned order is passed in breach of principles of natural justice. 8. Mr.Gupta tried to justify the order on merits. However, since the order is passed in breach of principles of natural justice, it is not necessary to consider merits or demerits of the impugned order. We, accordingly, quash and set aside the impugned order solely on the ground that it is passed in breach of natural justice. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the event of remand no further opportunity of oral hearing need to be given to the petitioner since the matter was already heard and written submissions were already filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that petitioner was already heard and written submissions were already on record and that the order can be passed on the basis of written submissions already made. 10 In the result, application under section 80G of the Act is restored to the file of the Commissioner and the same is remitted back for consideration afresh in the light of the written submissions already filed by the petitioner, who shall decide the matter on its own merits within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Needless to mention that if the officer passing the order is different than the officer who had heard and passed the impugned order, then it would be obligatory on his part to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. 11. Writ petition is, thus, allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)