Sampoorna Samiti vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemption

PDF · subscribers
WP/6019/2020HC Madhya Pradesh13 March 2020Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE1 pages
For Petitioner: Himanshu Khemuka
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that an appeal lies against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) under Section 253(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not entertained on merits. The Court observed that the petitioner is entitled to take recourse to the alternative efficacious remedy of approaching the Tribunal in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of with this observation, and no decision was made on the merits of the exemption application or the Commissioner's order. The operative direction was for the petitioner to approach the ITAT.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sampoorna Samiti, challenged an order dated 25.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions). This order declined to grant exemption under Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court noted that an appeal against the Commissioner's order lies before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) under Section 253(1)(c) of the Act. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy of approaching the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 253(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is available to the petitioner? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, Sampoorna Samiti, approached the High Court by way of a writ petition challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) refusing to grant exemption under Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the exemption denial. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the exemption denial. However, the High Court itself noted the availability of an alternative remedy.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5)(vi),Section 253(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) CHIEF JUSTICE (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh WP-6019-2020 (SAMPOORNA SAMITI Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION) Jabalpur, Dated : 13-03-2020 Shri Himanshu Khemuka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenge in this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been made to the order dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions) declining to grant exemption under Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'). Undisputedly, against the aforesaid order, an appeal lies under Section 253(1)(c) of the Act to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'). In view of the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of with the observation that the petitioner shall be entitled to take recourse to the alternative efficacious remedy of approaching the Tribunal in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. PK

1 WP-6019-2020 Digitally signed by PARITOSH KUMAR Date: 20/03/2020 15:59:34

More judgments on Section 80G(5)(vi)

All 260 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5)(vi) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →