Union of India & Anr. v. Central India Institute of Medical Sciences - 2016-LL-0902-5

Citation	2016-LL-0902-5
Appellant Name	Union of India & Anr.
Respondent Name	Central India Institute of Medical Sciences
Court	SUPREME COURT
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	02/09/2016
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	competent authority • approved scientific research association
Bot Summary:	By the order under challenge the rejection/refusal of extension of approval under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was set aside by the High Court on the ground that the same was made by the Director and not by the competent authority i.e. the Finance Minister. We have perused the order dated 22.10.2010 refusing to renew the approval for the period 01.04.2008 onwards. From the said order it is evident that the initial grant of approval was ordered by the Minister but the same was conveyed by the Director. The orderdated 22.10.2010, recites that the decision not to extend the approval was approved by the prescribed authority. In view of the aforesaid averments, which remained uncontroverted, we are of the view the High Court was not justified in striking down/refusing the extension of the approval granted on the ground that the same has been passed by the Director, who is not competent to do so. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the High Court and allow this appeal. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Leave granted.

IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8733 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.4569 of 2015) UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS CENTRAL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES ...RESPONDENT(S) ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. By order under challenge rejection/refusal of extension of approval under Section 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act, 1961 was set aside by High Court on ground that same was made by Director and not by competent authority i.e. Finance Minister. Aggrieved Union of India
is in appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for appellants and perused relevant material. 4. None has appeared on behalf of respondent even after service of notice. 5. We have perused order dated 22.10.2010 refusing to renew approval for period 01.04.2008 onwards. From said order it is evident that initial grant of approval was ordered by Minister but same was conveyed by Director. orderdated 22.10.2010, recites that decision not to extend approval was approved by prescribed authority. It has been averred by
the appellant that under Rule 3, Govt. of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961 such decisions are required to go to CBDT and thereafter to Minister which requirement was complied with in present case.
6. In view of aforesaid averments, which remained uncontroverted, we are of view High Court was not justified in striking down/refusing extension of approval granted on ground that same has been passed by Director, who is not competent to do so. 7. Accordingly, we set aside order of High Court and allow this appeal. ....................,J. (RANJAN GOGOI) ....................,J. (PRAFULLA C. PANT) NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 02, 2016 ITEM NO.42 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4569/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17/11/2011 in WP No. 5956/2010 passed by High Court of Bombay at Nagpur) UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS CENTRAL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 02/09/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing counsel Court made following ORDER Leave granted. appeal is allowed in terms of signed order. As sequel to above, all pending interlocutory applications are disposed of. (Neetu Khajuria) Court Master (Asha Soni) Court Master (Signed order is placed on file.) Union of India & Anr. v. Central India Institute of Medical Science

Metadata

Judgment