BANGALORE EDUCATION TRUST Vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is before me questioning the rejection order at annexure-R dtd 4-8-2003 issued by the respondent. Petitioner states that it is a charitable trust. The objects of the trust are education and medical relief. Petitioner is registered under the provisions of sec. 12-A of the Indian Income Tax. Act, 1961. It is running an Engineering College and a Primary and Middle School. Returns are being filed. Income has been held to be exempted in terms of a notification issued under Sec. 143 of the Act. Petitioner was granted exemption under Sec. 80g in the year 1996. It was in force till 2000 as per annexure-D. Petitioner thereafter made an application seeking for renewal of the same. There were correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents. Thereafter, the authorities have chosen to reject the case of the petitioner. Petitioner is therefore before me.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

(3.) IN the case on hand, it is seen that the petitioner has made an application on 8-3-2001 in terms of annexure-E. Thereafter, the respondents sought for some information in terms of annexures-F and J. Petitioner provided the information sought for by the respondents. An opportunity was given in terms of Annexure-K. One Mr. Gopal was examined and thereafter the present order is passed. An argument is advanced that the order is not passed within six months and therefore the order is bad in law in terms of the limitation prescribed under the Act. I am unable to accept this argument in the light of Rule-11aa. The proviso provides for inclusion of any time taken in terms of Sub-rule 3 to Rule 11aa. Sub-Rule 3 provides for seeking for document or information. It further provides for enquiries in the case on hand. Material facts would reveal that information was sought for and thereafter enquiry was conducted providing an opportunity to the petitioner in terms of Annexure-K. Annexure-K is dtd 16-7-2003. Order is passed on 4-8-2003. In the given circumstances, it cannot be said that the order is passed beyond six months in the light of sub-rsule 3 to Rule 11-AA of the Rules. In these circumstances, this argument is not acceptable to me.