SET FREE CHURCHES INDIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/21ST PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 7937 of 2015 (N) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- SET FREE CHURCHES INDIA 2/254/1, TITOS BHAVAN, KUTTICHIRA ROAD OLLUKKARA PO, KALATHODU THRISSUR 680655, REPRESENTED BY DR. THOMAS ALEXANDER PRESIDENT. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CR BUILDINGS, IS PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 18 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) CR BUILDINGS, THRISSUR 680001 R BY SRI.KMV.PANDALAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 7937 of 2015 (N) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- EXT.P1:COPY OF TRUST DEED OF THE PETITIONER 04.06.2014 EXT.P2:COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT 08.07.2014 EXT.P3:COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT 13.01.2015 EXT.P4:COPY OF AMENDMENT DEED OF THE PETITIONER 29.01.2015 EXT.P5:COPY OF NOTE PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P6:COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT 30.01.2015 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL. --------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.7937 OF 2015 (N) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2015 J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P6 order passed by the 1st respondent, whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner for registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been rejected by the 1st respondent. The contention of the petitioner, in its challenge against Ext.P6 order, is that the reasons, on the basis of which the 1st respondent has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner, are that (i) the trust deed presented by the petitioner along with his application did not contain certain clauses that were mandatory for the purposes of grant of registration. and (ii) that the petitioner had not produced any material to show that the trust in question had commenced charitable activities simultaneously with the presenting of an application for exemption. In the writ petition, the petitioner points out that on the 1st respondent intimating the petitioner with regard to the absence of the relevant clauses in the trust deed, he had immediately rectified the mistake through an amendment deed dated 29.1.2015, which was then

W.P.(C).No.7937/2015 2 presented for registration before the Sub Registry, Ollukara. It is submitted that he obtained the amended deed from the Sub Registry on 7.2.2015, by which time, however, the 1st respondent had already passed Ext.P6 order that is impugned in the writ petition. It is also contended that, while the petitioner had in fact produced material to show that the trust had taken charitable activities simultaneously with the presenting of the application before the 1st respondent, Ext.P6 order of the 1st respondent does not refer to the said material. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that this is a case where the 1st respondent was obliged, as per the provisions of the Statute, to pass orders in the application on or before 31.1.2015. It was on account of this statutory compulsion that the 1st respondent could not grant the petitioner further time for producing documents for the purposes of disposing the application. Inasmuch as the petitioner has now demonstrated that the defects pointed out by the

W.P.(C).No.7937/2015 3 1st respondent have since been cured by the petitioner, and further, there is also the contention with regard to non-consideration of material that was produced by the petitioner, while passing Ext.P6 order, I feel that the interests of justice would be served by directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter, in the light of the material now available to support the application submitted by the petitioner. In order to enable the 1st respondent to do this, I quash Ext.P6 order and direct him to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders thereon, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall appear before the 1st respondent at 11 a.m. on any day, during the week commencing from 23.3.2015, as may be intimated to him by the 1st respondent. The writ petition is disposed as above. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp