JUDGMENT A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar J.-The petitioner is charitable society running three hospitals. It had claimed benefit of section 10(23C)(via) of Income-tax Act, 1961, for period commencing from 1999-2000. Exhibit P1 is order passed by Central Board of Direct Taxes approving application of petitioner for grant of benefit under section 10(23C)(via) for assessment years 1999-2000 to 2001-02, subject to compliance with conditions stipulated therein. For period from 2002-03 to 2004-05, petitioner had submitted exhibit P2 application before Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, respondent herein, and said application is stated to be pending before respondent even now. While so, petitioner on January 1, 2007, preferred exhibit P3 application for continuing benefit granted to it by exhibit P1 order, for assessment years from 2005-06 to 2007-08. By that time, however, provisions of section 10(23C)(via) had been amended by Finance Act, 2006, by adding fourteenth proviso therein which read as follows: "Provided also that in case fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in first proviso makes application on or after 1st day of June, 2006, for purposes of grant of exemption or continuance thereof, such application shall be made at any time during financial year immediately preceding assessment year from which exemption is sought." respondent, while considering exhibit P3 application of petitioner, found that in respect of claim for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006- 07, application preferred by petitioner would be hit by proviso aforementioned inasmuch as petitioner had not preferred application in respect of said assessment years during financial year immediately preceding assessment year for which benefit was sought. On this premise, he found application preferred by petitioner for said assessment years as belated. As regards assessment year 2007-08, respondent found that since there was no order passed on exhibit P2 application filed by petitioner for period from 2002-03 to 2004-05, and, consequently, no benefit granted to assessee in said years, there was no question of considering application for assessment years 2007-08 seeking continuation of benefit granted in previous years. On that premise, he rejected application for assessment year 2007-08 as well. Exhibit P4, dated January 23, 2008, is order of respondent rejecting claim of petitioner for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. In writ petition, exhibit P4 order of respondent is impugned, inter alia, on ground that fourteenth proviso to section 10(23C)(via) could not have had any application to assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and, further, that reasoning of respondent with regard to assessment year 2007-08 was faulty since respondent could not take advantage of his own inaction, in not passing any orders on exhibit P2 application that was pending before him. counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent wherein exhibit P4 order is sought to be justified by placing reliance on fourteenth proviso to section 10(23C)(via), that was inserted by Finance Act, 2006, with effect from June 1, 2006. It is further pointed out that claim for extension of benefit granted in earlier years, for assessment year 2007-08, also could not be entertained since petitioner had not shown that he had been granted exemption in earlier years. I have heard learned senior counsel, Sri Chacko George, appearing on behalf of petitioner and Sri Jose Joseph, learned standing counsel for Income-tax Department for respondent. On consideration of facts and circumstances of case as also submissions made across Bar, I am of view that this is case where admittedly exhibit P2 application that was preferred by petitioner claiming benefit under section 10(23C)(via), for assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 are pending consideration before respondent. Although said application is seen filed as early as on November 27, 2003, respondent has not passed any orders thereon. It is against backdrop of this inaction on part of respondent that findings in exhibit P4 order passed by him, in respect of assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, have to be examined. petitioner is person who had been granted benefit under section 10(23C)(via) for period from 1999-2000 to 2001-02 and, in usual course and in absence of any changed circumstances, he would be entitled to benefit of said provision for subsequent years as well. Notwithstanding this, for reasons best known to respondent no orders have been passed on exhibit P2 application for last 10 years. Exhibit P3 application dated January 1, 2007, was submitted by petitioner for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. When said application came up for consideration before respondent, respondent relied on provisions of fourteenth proviso to section 10(23C)(via), that has been inserted with effect from June 1, 2006, to hold that application submitted by inserted with effect from June 1, 2006, to hold that application submitted by petitioner for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 are belated. In my view, said finding of respondent in exhibit P4 order cannot be legally sustained in so far as it stems from erroneous interpretation of applicability of said proviso. It will be seen from reading of proviso, which is extracted above, that proviso is intended to ensure that any application preferred after June 1, 2006, for purposes of grant of exemption or continuation thereof has to be made during financial year immediately preceding assessment year from which exemption is sought. This would mean that, in case of assessee choosing to claim benefit under section 10(23C)(via) for any assessment year after June 1, 2006, application for said assessment year would necessarily have to be made during previous year relevant to said assessment year. said proviso obviously cannot have any application to those cases where previous year, relevant to assessment year, had already expired before introduction of said proviso under section 10(23C)(via). In case of petitioner, previous years relevant to assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 had already expired by January 1, 2006, date on which new proviso was introduced under section 10(23C)(via). Thus, said proviso could not have been cited as reason for holding application preferred by petitioner for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 to be belated. As far as assessment year 2007-08 was concerned, application of petitioner having been filed on January 1, 2007, complied with requirements of newly inserted proviso to section 10(23C)(via). said application could, therefore, have been considered on merits by respondent. respondent, however, in exhibit P4 order, chose to deny benefit of provision to petitioner on ground that application is one which sought continuation of exemption earlier granted to petitioner and since petitioner had not shown that exemption was granted for immediately preceding period, benefit sought for could not be granted even for assessment years 2007-08. In my view, findings in exhibit P4 relating to assessment year 2007-08 are also legally unsustainable since even if respondent was of opinion that benefit of section 10(23C)(via) could not be continued for said assessment year, nothing prevented him from treating application as fresh application for grant of benefit under section 10(23C)(via) for assessment year 2007-08. Thus, reasons given by respondent, in support of his findings in exhibit P4 order, are not legally tenable and order is hence liable to be quashed. I must hasten to add that there is yet another aspect of matter that needs to be considered. It is trite that under Income-tax Act, law that governs assessment of assessee in any assessment year is law prevailing as on 1st of April of relevant assessment year. In instant case, when it came to assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, amendment that was introduced through Finance Act with effect from June 1, 2006, would have no application to assessment of petitioner for said assessment years. amendment would govern only exemption that was to be granted with effect from assessment year 2007-08 onwards. Viewed from that angle also, therefore, findings of respondent in exhibit P4 order, in respect of assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 cannot be legally sustained. Resultantly, writ petition is allowed by quashing exhibit P4 order of respondent, and directing respondent to consider application preferred by petitioner for grant of benefit under section 10(23C)(via) of Income- tax Act, for period from 2002-03 to 200708, on merits by taking into account exhibits P2 and P3 applications preferred by petitioner. respondent shall pass composite order covering all aforesaid assessment years, after affording petitioner opportunity of hearing. respondent shall pass order, as directed, within period of four months from date of receipt of copy of this judgment. *** Marthoma Medical Mission v. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax