A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.@mdashThe petitioner had filed an application before the 2nd respondent for registration under Section 12 of the Income Tax Act. By Ext. P2 order dated 05.03.1997 the registration sought for by the petitioner was granted with effect from 15.11.1988. The petitioner thereafter filed an application in Form No. 56 for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, for the assessment years 1989-1990 to 1995-1996. It would appear that by Ext. P7 communication, the 3rd respondent forwarded the application to the 4th respondent, recommending the case of the petitioner for the issuance of a notification granting exemption. In the meanwhile Ext. P8 and P9 assessment orders were passed for the assessment years 1994-1995 and 1995-1996, where the exemption prayed for by the petitioner was not granted. In an appeal preferred against the said assessment orders, the appellate authority in Ext. P10 common order found the petitioner entitled to be treated as a public charitable organisation under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. It is pointed out that against Ext. P10 appellate order, the department has filed an appeal before the Income Tax appellate Tribunal which is pending before that forum. In the original petition the petitioner is essentially aggrieved by Ext. P13 order dated 11.05.2000, that was passed by the 4th respondent holding that the petitioner does not fulfill the conditions for issuance of a notification under section 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act. Insofar as Ext. P13 order does not cite any reasons for the rejection of the petitioners claim, the petitioner preferred Ext. P14 representation before the 4th respondent seeking a reconsideration of the matter. No decision was taken on the said representation and hence the petitioners approached this Court inter alia for a direction to quash Ext. P13 order and for a direction to the 4th respondent to consider Ext. P14 representation.
2. I have heard Sri P.K. Ravindranath Menon, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax department.
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I am of the view that when the claim of the petitioner in terms of Section (23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act was submitted before the 3rd respondent who in turn forwarded the application to the 4th respondent with a recommendation for the grant of exemption, it was incumbent upon the 4th respondent to state the reasons that weighed with him while taking the decision, in Ext. P13 order, not to grant exemption to the petitioner. A perusal of Ext P13 order passed by the 4th respondent does not disclose any reason for his decision. A quasi-judicial authority, who is entrusted with the task of adjudicating upon the rights of a person, cannot pass orders that are ambiguous and vague by not stating the reasons that informed his decision. In that view of the matter, for the sole reason that it is a non-speaking order that violates the rights of the petitioner, I quash Ext. P13 order of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, taking into account the recommendations of the 3rd respondent, as contained in Ext. P7 communication, as also Ext. P14 representation by the petitioner, and pass fresh orders on the claim of the petitioner for exemption in terms of Section 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The 4th respondent shall pass fresh orders as directed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
