Law:

Section:

JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. - By way of this writ petition (as amended), the petitioner seeks the quashing of the First Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') as amended by the Finance Act, 2008, on the ground that it is arbitrary and unreasonable and has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved and is thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also seeks the quashing of the order dated 23.01.2013, which was passed by the respondent under Section 154 of the said Act in connection with the earlier order dated 23.02.2012, whereby exemption earlier granted under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the said Act had been withdrawn. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to grant exemption to the petitioner under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the said Act. 2. On 01.05.2008, by a notification No. DGIT(E)/10(23C)(iv)/2008/143, approval had been granted under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the said Act to the petitioner for the assessment year 2007-08 onwards. During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2009-10, a proposal for withdrawal of the exemption was received from the Assessing Officer through the Director of Income-tax (Exemptions), Delhi on 21.12.2011. The proposal was moved for considering the case for withdrawal of exemption on the ground that the main object of the petitioner being advancement of objects of general public utility, the proviso to Section 2(15), which had been introduced with effect from 01.04.2009 was applicable. This led to an order dated 23.02.2012 passed by the respondent withdrawing the exemption, which had earlier been granted under Section 10(23C)(iv) from the assessment year 2009-10 onwards. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner was engaged in socially and economically desirable activities relating to the promotion of Indian trade and that the activities of the petitioner fell within the ambit of the expression "the advancement of any other object of general public utility" as appearing in Section 2(15) of the said Act. But, because…