DISHMAN GROUP OF COMPANIES EMPLOYEES SUPERANNUATION SCHEME Vs. SECRETARY CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the order passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CBDT') dated November 17, 2009 in the following factual background :

(2.) ON issuance of Rule, an affidavitinreply has been furnished inter alia contending that the request made by the petitioner cannot be acceded to as the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there was noncompliance of Rule 3(c) of Part B of Schedule IV of the Act since the petitioner has failed to comply with the queries raised by the Department. It is further contended that the order passed on May 27, 2009 according approval to the superannuation scheme has to take effect from January 12, 2009 as that is the date on which the application is moved, completing all required necessities as required by the law. The first application's rejection was on account of failure on the part of the petitioner to adduce necessary documents. It is further contended that the first application when was moved by the petitioner, the show cause notice which was issued was with a request to show cause as to why the application dated November 05, 2007 be not rejected on the ground of nonmaintainability of the application as well as on account of noncompliance with the conditions of approval as prescribed under the law and on October 16, 2008 there was noncompliance and, therefore, when it was found that the application did not meet with the important conditions necessary for approval of the superannuation fund, his application needed to meet with rejection.

(3.) LEARNED counsel Mr.Hemani appearing for the petitioner has fervently urged that the respondent No.2 while dealing with the first application could not have rejected the same on merits once having held that the same was not maintainable. He further urged that all requisite documents necessary for the purpose of grant of approval were already before the concerned authority and, therefore also, such rejection could not have come. It is further urged that when the employer had made the contribution from the inception substantiated by the bank documents and also the copy of the statement issued by the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, which handled this Fund for and on behalf of the petitioner, the Court needs to interfere.