HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1874 / 2011 Rajasthan Technical University, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota, Through Its Finance Officer, Sh. S.N Sharma S/o Sh. Ratan Lal Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, 691-A, R.k Puram, Kota, (Rajasthan) Appellant Versus 1. Income-Tax, Officer, Ward- 1(2), C.R. Building, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota 2. Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R. Building, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota 3. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, Delhi-110 001 4. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001 5. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Secretariat, Jaipur Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1875 / 2011 Rajasthan Technical University, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota, Through Its Finance Officer, Sh. S.n Sharma S/o Sh. Ratan Lal Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, 691-A, R.k Puram, Kota, (Rajasthan) Appellant Versus 1. Income-Tax, Officer, Ward- 1(2), C.R. Building, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota 2. Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R. Building, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota 3. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, Delhi-110 001 4. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001 5. State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Secretariat, Jaipur Respondents (2 of 4) [SAW-1874/2011] For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar For Respondent(s) : Ms. Parinitoo Jain. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Judgment / Order 04/09/2017 1. By way of these appeals, appellant has challenged judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge. 2. facts of case are that petitioner has preferred writ petition challenging impugned order dated 26.07.2011 whereby respondent Income-Tax Officer has over-ruled objection of petitioner that petitioner University is exempted under Section 10(23C) (iiiab) of Income Tax Act, 1961(for short 'the Act') and has directed petitioner to file copy of income tax return and audit report for year under consideration. 3. From submission, pleadings and documents, it appears that for assessment year 2007-08, notice dated 08.07.2011 was given to petitioner-University. petitioner filed its reply/objection petition dated 12.07.2011 seeking exemption from applicability of Act under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of Act. Learned Income Tax Officer vide its order dated 26.07.2011 came to conclusion that petitioner is not exempted under Section 10 (23C)(iiiab) of Act. 4. It is contended that reasons assigned by Income Tax Officer for not accepting objection of petitioner are illegal (3 of 4) [SAW-1874/2011] and without jurisdiction, therefore, this Court should interfere in said order and quash same. 5. learned Single Judge has disposed of writ petition on ground of alternative remedy. 6. Counsel for respondent has relied on decision of Supreme Court in case of Jeans Knit (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. :: (2017) 145 DTR (SC) 16 wherein it has been held as under:- 2. We find that High Courts in all these cases have dismissed writ petitions preferred by appellant/assessee herein challenging issuance of notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and reasons which were recorded by AO for reopening assessment. These writ petitions are dismissed by High Courts as not maintainable. aforesaid view taken is contrary to law laid down by this Court in Calcutta Discount Limited Company vs. ITO. [(1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC)]. We, thus, set aside impugned judgments and remit cases to respective High Courts to decide writ petitions on merits. 3. We may make it clear that this Court has not made any observations on merits of cases, i.e. contentions which are raised by appellant challenging move of Income Tax Authorities to re-open assessment. Each case shall be examined on its own merits keeping in view scope of judicial review while entertaining such matters, as laid down by this Court in various judgments. 6. In that view of matter, appeals are allowed and we remit back matter to learned Single Judge. However, we make it clear that matter is remitted back to learned Single Judge only in view of decision of Supreme Court. We are not expressing any opinion on merits of case and learned Single Judge will decide same on merits. It will open (4 of 4) [SAW-1874/2011] for both department to file reply/objection. Till matter is decided by learned Single Judge, no recovery from appellant shall be effected. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Pdaiya/56-57 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Rajasthan Technical University v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 1(2), Kota/ Commissioner of Income-tax, Kota/ Central Board of Direct Taxes, Delhi/ Union of India, New Delhi/ State of Rajasthan, Jaipur