Darul Uloom Rahmania vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the impugned order dated August 23, 2025, lacked reasons and application of mind to the specific grounds urged by the petitioner in its stay application. While the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) relied on two High Court decisions, it failed to address the petitioner's specific arguments, such as the alleged limitation bar under Section 154(9) and the nature of income received. The court noted that the revenue's counsel could not dispute this lack of specific consideration. Consequently, the High Court decided to remand the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for a fresh decision on the stay application. The Commissioner is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law within four weeks from the receipt of the order, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The impugned order of August 23, 2025, was set aside. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the court's direction was to reconsider the stay application.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Darul Uloom Rahmania, is challenging an order dated August 23, 2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) which rejected its stay application for a demand of Rs. 98,62,830/- for Assessment Year 2014-15. The petitioner claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Rs. 1,88,69,321/-, declaring NIL income. Although it did not have Section 12AA registration at the time, it was granted later on November 30, 2017. A demand was raised under Section 143(1). Rectification applications were filed, and the last one was rejected on September 24, 2024. An appeal against this rejection is pending. The petitioner filed a stay application before the CIT(Exemption), arguing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and limitation under Section 154(9). The CIT(Exemption) directed payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- by September 1, 2025, failing which coercive recovery proceedings would be initiated.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the impugned order dated August 23, 2025, rejecting the petitioner's stay application, is arbitrary, illegal, unsustainable in law, without application of mind, against the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and in violation of principles of natural justice (mixed law and fact, concerning Section 226(c) and principles of natural justice)? Assessee's Contentions: - The impugned order is cryptic and fails to deal with any of the grounds urged for stay, including a strong prima facie case and balance of convenience in its favour. - The order of rejection of the rectification application was barred by limitation by six years under Section 154(9) of the Act. - Relied on CBDT Circular No. 320 dated January 11, 1982. - The majority of income comprised voluntary contributions and foreign contributions. - The petitioner is eligible for exemption, and any surplus income should be taxed at normal rates, making the demand invalid. Revenue's Contentions: - The impugned order considered relevant decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, including those in the cases of The General and Technical Education Society and Zoos and Parks Authority of Telangana v. CIT (E) (2024) 467 ITR 235 (Telangana). - No blanket stay was granted; instead, 15% of the total demand was directed to be deposited. - The revenue's counsel could not dispute that the specific grounds urged by the petitioner in the stay application were not dealt with by the respondent.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 11,Section 12AA,Section 143(1),Section 154,Section 154(9),Section 226(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARBSH KI'MAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G,M.MOHII'DDIN WRIT PETITION No.28228 of 2025 ORDER: Learned counsel Dr. C.P.Ramaswami appears for the pe titioner Sri VShay K. Punna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, appears for the re sponden ts.
The application for stay on the recovery of the demand of Rs.98,62,830/- pending the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 24.10.2024 in respect of the assessment year 2074-2015 has been rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) respondent No.1, by the following order dated 23.O8.2025 impugned herein (Annexure P- 1) "GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT crr (EXEMPTION), tryD To Darul Uloom Rahmania 23-l-133/3, Rangcli I( had ik i Tala b l(arta 500023, Telangar)a India I
--fl 2 PAN: AACAD29O2O Assessment Year 2014- 15 DIN & Lett€r 'lo: rTBA/COM F '17 12025-26 r l0799t5!,.11 Sir, Madam/M/s, Subjcct: Online senrice of Orders - Letter Sub: Decision on Stay Application - Request for Partial Payment - Reg. This is with reicrence to ]'our application for sta_r' of coli,r t ion of ta-\cs. sL bmittcd belore the Commissioner oI Inco:rc 'l'ax (Exernpticns), ilyclerabad. ns per lhis the dcr,rand pa.,r. I c arc as u nder: Asst. Yr I ar Out standin lJcrrand t 3447 590 2))!L 5 After carefully cxamining all relevant facts and circumstanccs of your case, and also considering the recent order of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Hlgh Court in the case of \t':: The General and T<zchntcal Education Soclety (IA No.1_ of 2025 i;t WP No.12728 of '2025) and also considering the Hon'ble Flish i)ourt of 'lelangilna crrder in the case of Zoos and Parks Auih)t tA of Telangano u. {:lT (E) (2024) 467 ITR 235 (Telar,gana) /,1(:1, }.our stay appli:atiorl has bcen consldered. It is, therefore, decided that your stay petitior is conr,idered provlded you pay an amount of RS.2OOOOOO/- on or before O1.O9.2O25 and produce copies of challans befo:'e the Assessing Offrcer of your case and marked a copy to the underslgned. Please no e thzrt if ,\ ou fall to comply with this directi\': t i the due date, thc Assesslng Officer will be at liberty to injtiate coercive recovery proceedings uncler scctlon 226(-:l o: the I.T.Act, 1961 without any further communication. Further r',ru arc informed to treat this matter \vith urger,-l and ensure compliance ulthin the stipulated timelrame to a\'ol, anY further action try the Department. BALA KRISHNA E]A IULA crT(ExtrMPIrOt l. HYD , Dated: 23lOa 12025 \
3 Copy to 1 Assessing Oflicer.
Additional Commissioner oI Income Tax (Exmp), Hyderabad BALA KRISHNA BAT'TULA CIT(EXEMPTION), HYD"
The petitioner had claimed an exemption of Rs.1,88,69,321 l- under Section 1 1 of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"), and declared "NIL" income in its return for the assessment year 2Ol4- 2015. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner, who claims to be a religious society constituted on 07 .10. 199 1 to provide educational facilities without profit motive and not to carry on any commerciai activities in that regard, did not have any registration under Section l2Al 72AA of the Act, which was later granted on 30.ll.2ol7. A demand of Rs.98,62,830/- was raised upon processing its return and an intimation under Section 1a3(1) of the Act was sent to the petitioner. It preferred rectification application under Section 154 of the Act in January 2Ol7 and later again on 05.02.2018 upon grant of registration under Section 12AA of the Act claiming the benefit of exemption for three prior years as per the proviso to Section l2A(2\ of the Act' The rectification application was rejected on 24.O9 '2024 ' The I I
-r 4 \ petitioner thereafter filed an appeal against such rejection, which is pending. pending appeal, it filed the rapplication for stay before respondent No.l, inter alia, takiny; a number of grounds such as, that it has more than a ,..trima facie case in its favour and the baiance of convenie-r,::e is also rveighed agerinst the revenue. According to the ;retitioner, the order of rejection of the rectification app1lr:ertion was barred by limitation by six years in terms of sub-sectlon (g) of Section 154 of the Act. The petitioner also r,jled upon the Central Board of Direct Taxation (CBDT) Circular No.320, dated 1 1.01. 1982. The petitioner cont€ n ded that the majority of income received during the relevant financial year comprised of voluntary conrributions received in India and the foreign contributions. The petitioner also pleaded that it is eligible for exemption and the surplus income, if any, shall be taxable r.rnder the normal rates, As such, it was not liable to pay the tax and no demand shou]d have been raised. 4 . LearneC counsel for the petitioner submits t.hat the impugned orcler, however, in a cryptic ma.ner direr::ted the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.20,00,000/_ on or before
l Ol .Og.2025 and failure to comph'thereu'ith u'ould lead to initiation of coercive recovery proceedings under Section 226(g\ of the Act without any further communication' The respondent No.1 has, in the impugned order' not dealt with any of the grounds urged for stay of the demand' Therefore, the petitioner, being aggrieved' has approached this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order. It is submitted that respondent No' 1 has taken into consideration the decisions rendered by the jurisdictional High Court and held to be applicable to the factsandcircumstancesofthecaseofthepetitioner. Therefore, no blanket stal' of the demand has been granted. Instead, 15"/o of the total demand has been directed to be deposited. Learned counsel for the respondent has, hor'"'ever, not been able to dispute that the specific grounds urged by the petitioner in the stay application have not been dealt with by the respondent No.1 in the imPugned order. I I
6
We have considered the submissions ol I re learned counsel for the parties.
The impugned order has been quoted lrt:reinabove. The grounds urged by the petitioner in the stal I'Lpplication are contained the writ affidavit and also in AnrLexure P-14, dated 14.1.2.2024. As noted above, responde:rt No.1 has failed to deal with the specific grounds urg-'d by the petitioner in the impugned order, except relyirrl1 upon the two decisions of this Court which, in his opinion, were relevant to the facts and circumstances of the ,::ase of the petitioner. As such, we are of the .opinion that the impugned order lacks reasons and applicatiorL rf mind to the specific grounds urged by the petitioner ir1 the sta,v applicatr ol i.
In that view of the matter, we are inclirl t:d to remrt ,'the matGr to respondenL No. 1 to take a fresh <:iecision on the stay apptcation of the petitioner in accorrlance with 1aw'within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt oI a copy of thls order, after giving an opporturril.y of being {
7 heard to the petitioner. The impugned order, dated 23.08.2025, is accordingly set aside.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA Asstsrnxr REGIsTRAR /,/ @ SECTION OFFICER //// To, 1 The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Ex-emption), Aayakar Bhavan, opp. L.B, si;i;, Br.hleioasn HYderabad - 5oooo4 The Centralized Processrng Center' 1st Floor' Prestige Aloha No 4Bl1 and 48 t2. Ber atenaasrah ara B"'s;; ii;d';tl'-a' Utt'iini iti Hbbli' Bensalu ru' Karnataka - 560100 The lncome Tax Officer, (Exemption), Ward- 1(!) Aayakar Bhawan' Opposite iii'sffii;; aZsn;eiealrr. Hvberarad - 500004 One CC to SRI DT C P RAMASWAIUI' Advocate lOPUCl One CC to SRI VIJHAY K PUNNA, (SENIOR SC FOR ITD) [OPUC] 2 J 4 5 6 M, Two CD CoPies BSK BS
HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 910912025 ORDER WP.No.28228 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 2'- :fP 2U, r,l :t I q td
More judgments on Section 11
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Mata Lachmi Rotary Charitable Society… vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward - 1…ITA 310/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 531/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 530/NAG/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Susanta Mohanty, Gandarpur, Cuttack vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Arun Kumar Mallik vs. The Commissioner, CGST, Cx And Customs,BbsrOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Sabita Khosla vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Rayagada-Ii Range, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Karo Sambhav Private Limited Through Its Director Mr. Pranshu Singhal vs. Additional/Joint Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 31 Oct 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026