- (1.) The petitioner, an assessee under the IT Act, 1961 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act') being aggrieved of the order dt. 26th March, 2009 passed by respondent-Chief CIT, Jodhpur denying approval under s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act on the ground that the petitioner violated the basic mandate of s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to such approval, which in turn would have entitled the petitioner-trust to avail exemption from the income-tax as per the said provision of s. 10(23C) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee, keeping open other contentions, essentially made a limited prayer and emphasized that the petitioner was not given proper and adequate opportunity of hearing in compliance of principles of natural justice in true sense and merely on the basis of allegations made against the petitioner-trust, without allowing the petitioner-assessee to controvert the adverse material allegedly collected by the Revenue authorities in a survey conducted at the premises of the petitioner under s. 133A of the Act on 29th Nov., 2006 and subsequently the respondent-Chief CIT arrived at the finding against the petitioner-assessee and denied such approval under s. 10(23C) of the Act.
(2.) Mr. Vikas Balia, learned counsel for the petitioner- assessee submitted that in fact, after service of the show-cause notice upon the petitioner on the given dt. 11th Feb., 2009 itself, the petitioner-assessee furnished due explanation of the allegations made against it and thereafter only on 17th March, 2009, the case was discussed by the respondent Chief CIT with Mr. Rajendra Jain, Authorised Representative of the petitioner; and even though it is mentioned in internal p. 3 of the impugned order that said authority had referred to material on record like report of CIT, Bikaner, its enclosures and other material collected through reports of subordinate authorities, no such material was supplied to the petitioner-assessee and nine days thereafter on 26th March, 2009, the impugned order was passed against the petitioner-assessee rejecting such approval under s. 10(23C) of the Act. He submitted that without allowing the assessee to rebut the allegations by supplying him the adverse material, the principles of natural justice cannot be said to be complied with, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that as far as registration of the petitioner-trust under s. 12A of the Act is concerned as charitable trust/institution since the Departmental authorities denied the same on the ground of same survey under s. 133A of the Act, contesting the appeal before the learned Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal finally allowed the assessee's appeal vide order dt. 18th Nov., 2008, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annex. 3.;