Bombay High Court Quashes Rejection of Approval Under Section 10(23C)(vi) of Income Tax Act for Educational Trust — Non-Application of Mind and Violation of Natural Justice. The court held that the Chief Commissioner failed to consider the trust's objects and activities, and the order was passed without giving a proper hearing.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Rukmanrani Education Foundations, a public charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1951, runs schools in Maharashtra. It was set up under a trust deed dated 18th January 2003, which entitles it to establish educational institutions. On 29th December 2009, the petitioner filed an application seeking approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which exempts income of educational institutions existing solely for educational purposes and not for profit. By a letter dated 1st December 2010, the respondents (Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Union of India) sought information and requested the petitioner to appear on 8th December 2010. A trustee appeared and filed a response and additional information on 8th December 2010. However, by the impugned order dated 15th December 2010, the respondents rejected the application. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order and a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to grant approval. The court examined the impugned order and found that it was passed without application of mind. The order stated that the trust was not existing solely for educational purposes and was for profit, but the trust deed clearly showed the objects were educational. The court noted that the Commissioner did not consider the trust deed or the activities of the trust, and the order was based on irrelevant considerations. Additionally, the court found that the petitioner was not given a proper opportunity to be heard, as the order did not refer to the petitioner's submissions. The court held that the impugned order was unsustainable and quashed it, directing the respondents to reconsider the application afresh after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The court also directed that the reconsideration be completed within four months from the date of the order.

Headnote

A) Income Tax - Approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) - Educational Institution - The petitioner, a public charitable trust running schools, sought approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Chief Commissioner rejected the application on the ground that the trust was not existing solely for educational purposes and was for profit. The court held that the impugned order was passed without application of mind, as the Commissioner did not consider the trust deed or the activities of the trust, and the order was based on irrelevant considerations. The court also found that the petitioner was not given a proper opportunity to be heard, violating natural justice. (Paras 1-10)

B) Income Tax - Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - The court observed that the respondents sought information and the petitioner responded, but the impugned order did not refer to the petitioner's submissions or the trust deed. The court held that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given a fair hearing. (Paras 5-10)

C) Income Tax - Application of Mind - Rejection of Approval - The court noted that the impugned order stated that the trust was not existing solely for educational purposes and was for profit, but the trust deed clearly showed the objects were educational. The court held that the Commissioner failed to apply his mind to the material on record, rendering the order unsustainable. (Paras 6-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without proper application of mind and in violation of principles of natural justice.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 15th December 2010, and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's application for approval under section 10(23C)(vi) afresh after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The reconsideration was to be completed within four months from the date of the order.

Law Points

  • Section 10(23C)(vi) of Income Tax Act
  • 1961
  • approval for educational institution
  • existing solely for educational purposes
  • not for profit
  • natural justice
  • non-application of mind
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (BOM) (06) 105

WRIT PETITION NO. 5849 OF 2011

2012-06-15

S.J. Vazifdar, M.S. Sanklecha

2012:BHC-AS:12350-DB

Mr. V. Sridharan, senior counsel with Mr. Abhijeet Marathe and Ms. Pallavi Smriti i/b M/s. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. Tejveer Singh for the Respondents.

Rukmanrani Education Foundations

Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Union of India

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging rejection of application for approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961.

Remedy Sought

Writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 15th December 2010 and writ of mandamus to direct respondents to grant approval under section 10(23C)(vi).

Filing Reason

The petitioner's application for approval under section 10(23C)(vi) was rejected by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax without proper application of mind and in violation of natural justice.

Previous Decisions

The impugned order dated 15th December 2010 rejected the petitioner's application for approval under section 10(23C)(vi).

Issues

Whether the impugned order rejecting approval under section 10(23C)(vi) was passed without application of mind? Whether the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice?

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without application of mind as the Commissioner did not consider the trust deed or the activities of the trust. The petitioner argued that the order was passed in violation of natural justice as they were not given a proper hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The Chief Commissioner must apply his mind to the trust deed and activities of the trust while considering an application under section 10(23C)(vi). The order must be passed after giving the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Non-application of mind and violation of natural justice render the order unsustainable.

Judgment Excerpts

The impugned order does not refer to the trust deed or the activities of the trust. It merely states that the trust is not existing solely for educational purposes and is for profit. This indicates non-application of mind. The petitioner was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. The order does not refer to the petitioner's submissions. Hence, the order is in violation of principles of natural justice.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed an application for approval under section 10(23C)(vi) on 29th December 2009. The respondents sought information and the petitioner responded on 8th December 2010. The respondents rejected the application by order dated 15th December 2010. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on an unspecified date.

Acts & Sections

  • Income Tax Act, 1961: 10(23C)(vi)
  • Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1951:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Rejection of Approval Under Section 10(23C)(vi) of Income Tax Act for Educational Trust — Non-Application of Mind and Violation of Natural Justice. The court held that the Chief Commissioner failed to consider the trust's ...
Related Judgement
High Court Karnataka High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With. Agreement to Sell Not Proved as Plaintiff Failed to Establish Readiness and Willingness to Perform Contract.