1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging an order dated January 25, 2008, passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhubaneswar. By the said order, the Chief Commissioner has rejected the petitioner's application for grant of approval for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the said application was filed beyond time.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the said application was filed on June 1,2006, consideration has been made on the basis of the proviso added to Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act.
3. According to the Chief Commissioner, the proviso does not give any room for him to condone the delay and, as such, the application was not considered and rejected on the ground that it was filed after a particular time.
4. This Court is of the opinion that since the application for grant of approval for exemption which has been filed by an educational institution though belatedly filed should have been considered on the merits. In deciding such questions the Commissioner decides the rights of the parries and, therefore, has to act in a quasi-judicial capacity. He has to decide the rights of the parties after a hearing. Any authority exercising such quasi-judicial function should also have the incidental power of condoning de}ay if there is justifiable ground for such condonation. There is no clear statutory bar preventing such condonation. .
5. In view of the above, this Court directs that the Chief Commissioner may condone the delay on the basis of an application which is to be filed by the petitioner explaining the circumstances for delay. If such application has already been filed, the same may be considered by the Chief Commissioner. We do not make any observation whether the delay should be condoned or not. We merely direct that the application for condonation should be considered on the merits. Then the application for grant of exemption may be considered on the merits. If the Chief Commissioner finds that sufficient ground is made out for condonation of delay, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. The entire exercise is left to the discretion of the Chief Commissioner and he should pass order on the petition for condonation of delay within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
6. In this matter, counter has been filed on behalf of the Revenue.
7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
8. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, Miscellaneous Case No. 4165 of 2008 stands disposed of. A free copy of this order to be supplied to the learned Counsel for the Revenue.