JUDGEMENT Sudhir Kumar Katriar and Kishore Kumar Mandal JJ. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28/29.11.2007 (Annexure-2), passed by the learned Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna, whereby he has rejected the petitioners application for exemption under Section 10(23-C)(vi) or (via) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. Elaborate submissions have been advanced by learned Counsel for both sides in support of their respective stand. We do not wish to recapitulate them, let alone deal with them, in view of the nature of the order that we are going to pass. 2. It appears that the petitioner is an educational institution and is engaged in the task of imparting education to boys and girls. It was earlier treated to be an institution within the meaning of Sub-section (15) of Section 2 of the Act for the periods prior to the ones in question, and had accordingly enjoyed exemption from taxation under the Act. The learned authorities under the Act noticed for the two periods in question that it had registered profit beyond 15% for five cumulative years from "transporting business" as the impugned order describes this part of the petitioners activity. One of the important reasons assigned in the impugned order for rejecting the petitioners application for exemption from payment of Income Tax is that it has "...sizeable surplus over 15% as permitted under the Act...", and has failed to maintain separate books of accounts for this activity. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has endeavoured to satisfy us that sufficient materials had been placed before the learned authorities under the Act which have had been maintained by the petitioner in routine course of business, have been duly certified by the Chartered Accountant to satisfy them that the books of accounts have been satisfactorily maintained as per the legal requirements in so far as "transporting business" is concerned. It appears to us on a perusal of the impugned order that the matter needs a detailed consideration which has perhaps been denied to the petitioner. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order. 3. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 28/29.11.2007 (Annexure-2) is hereby set aside. The matter goes back to the learned Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna, for a fresh decision in accordance with law. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order. 3. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 28/29.11.2007 (Annexure-2) is hereby set aside. The matter goes back to the learned Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna, for a fresh decision in accordance with law. It goes without saying that the petitioner would be afforded adequate opportunity to place all their relevant materials and on consideration of the same, the matter may be disposed of by a reasoned and exhaustive order. He should also, inter-alia, take into account the judgment of the Supreme Court in American Hotel and Lodging Association Educational Institute v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors. reported in (2008)10 SCC 509 .