JUDGMENT Harish Tandon, J. The petitioner is a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961 with an object to promote advancement of Chemical Engineering Science, to carry out and support Scientific Research and to disseminate education and knowledge in the field of Chemical Engineering. Section 35 (1) (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allows the deduction in respect of expenditure on Scientific Research to a Research Association or to a University, College or other Institution provided they are approved in accordance with the guidelines as may be prescribed and notified in the Official Gazette by the Central Government. It is not in dispute that since its incorporation, the petitioner was recognized under the aforesaid provisions till 31st March, 2005 in the category of University, College or other Institution partly engaged in Scientific Activity. The petitioner applied for renewal of the said exemption on 27th January, 2005. Undisputedly, the department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India accorded renewal of the recognition to the petitioner under the scheme on recognition of Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, 1988 from 1st May, 2005 to 31st March, 2008. The said authority further granted registration for the purpose of availing custom duty’s exemption in terms of various notifications and circulars and validity of such registration was indicated up to 31st March, 2014. A show cause notice dated 1st April, 2008 was issued on the petitioner by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India through under Secretary (ITA. II) as to why an application should not be rejected. The petitioner submitted the reply to the said issuing authority. Since no response was made, the petitioner requested for early disposal of the said application. Subsequently by letter dated 20th August, 2009, the petitioner was informed that the prescribed authority did not find any ground to grant approval for exemption under Section 35 (1) (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and had rejected the said application. The said order is challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P. No. 7193 (w) of 2012 on various points including a point that the Central Board of Direct Taxes is not the competent authority under the aforesaid section. The said section postulates that the Central Government is only competent to grant permission. The said order is challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P. No. 7193 (w) of 2012 on various points including a point that the Central Board of Direct Taxes is not the competent authority under the aforesaid section. The said section postulates that the Central Government is only competent to grant permission. The Court allowed the said writ petition holding that the CBDT is not the Central Government for the purpose of said section and directed the application to be heard afresh. The said order was carried in Intra Court Appeal (MAT 795 of 2013). The said appeal stood partly allowed on 28 November, 2013 deleting the observation wherein it was held that the CBDT is not the Central Government and permitted the petitioner to agitate the said point before the authority which may propose to hear the writ petition on the subject. In the meantime, an assessment came to be made under Section 143 (3) of the said Act for the assessment year 2009-2010 raising a demand of Rs. 32, 23,096/-. Since the amount was not paid, a garnishee proceeding was initiated under Section 226 of the said Act by attaching the bank account of the petitioner and collecting the same therefrom. Since the exemption used to be granted for three years, the petitioner made two applications seeking renewal of the exemption under Section 35 (1) (ii) of the said Act for the Year 2008-2011 and 2011-2014. On an application made for the Year 2011-2014, a letter was issued on 26th February, 2013 by the Deputy Secretary to Government of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Central Board of Direct Taxes for submission of various documents and to avail an opportunity of hearing on the date so fixed. The petitioner once again raised objection as to the competence of the Member IT, CBDT and CAT (ITA) as they cannot be said to be Central Government. By letter dated 21st March, 2013 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue (CBDT), Ministry of Finance, the application for renewal filed by the petitioner was communicated to have been dismissed by the competent authority. By letter dated 21st March, 2013 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue (CBDT), Ministry of Finance, the application for renewal filed by the petitioner was communicated to have been dismissed by the competent authority. The petitioner have raised two fold grievance in this writ petition firstly; that the order dated 21st March, 2013 is bad having passed in gross violation of principle of natural justice secondly; the application seeking renewal for exemption for the period 2005-2008 has not been considered as yet. On the first point, it is submitted that the Minister of Finance is the competent authority under Section 35 (1) (ii) of the Income Tax Act and not the CBDT. It is further submitted that the notice of hearing issued to the petitioner shows that the hearing was conducted by an authority other than the Minister of Finance who ultimately rejected the application and, therefore, no opportunity of hearing was given before the Minister of Finance. It is audaciously submitted that the authority who is empowered to grant or reject should afford an opportunity of hearing, which is admittedly not done in the instant case. It is not in dispute that Section 35 (1) (ii) of the said Act empowers the Central Government to approve the exemption. The information furnished vide letter dated 23rd January, 2014 under Right to Information Act, 2005 indicates that the Finance Minister is the specific authority to discharge the functions and powers of the Central Government under Section 35 (1) (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner appears to have inspired by a division bench judgment of the Bombay High Court rendered in case of Indian Planetary Society vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and other reported in (2009) 318 ITR 102 wherein it is held that the Central Board of Direct Taxes can not discharge the functions of the Central Government under the aforesaid provisions. Solely relying upon the above noted judgment, the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed after quashing the order as the authority who is attached to CBDT cannot discharge the functions of the Central Government. Solely relying upon the above noted judgment, the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed after quashing the order as the authority who is attached to CBDT cannot discharge the functions of the Central Government. The Appellate Court, however, modified the said order with categorical observation that the Bombay High Court did not record any reasons as to why the CBDT cannot discharge the function of the Central Government and directed the matter to be considered by the appropriate authority. Article 77 (3) of the Constitution of India bestowed power on the President to make Rules for more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of India and for allocation amongst the Minister of the said business. In exercise of such power, the president makes the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules 1961 where the business of the Government of India shall be transacted in the Ministries, Governments, Secretaries and Officers specified in the first schedule. The distribution of the subjects amongst the departments is also specified in second schedule to the said Rules. In the first schedule, the department of revenue is within the Ministry of Finance and CBDT is within the department of revenue. The Allocation of Business Rules was not produced before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the above noted report which is clearly discernible from the following observations: “On a perusal of the provisions of section 35 (1) (ii) and the proviso it would be clear that the authority to grant permission is the Government of India. In the instant case, rejection has been by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Nothing has been shown before us to show that the Central Board of Direct Taxes under the Business Rules of the Government of India has been allowed to discharge functions of the Government under section 35 (1) (ii). If the provisos of section 35 (1) are seen the Central Board of Direct Taxes is the prescribed authority in certain cases. However, it certainly is not the organization covered under section 35 (1) (ii). If the provisos of section 35 (1) are seen the Central Board of Direct Taxes is the prescribed authority in certain cases. However, it certainly is not the organization covered under section 35 (1) (ii). In the absence of any material on this count alone, the order is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded to the Government of India for reconsideration according to law.” For better understanding and clear exposition, on the functioning of the Government, the reliance could be placed on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Shamsher Sing & another vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1974 SC 2192 wherein it is held: “The essence of Cabinet System of Government responsible to the Legislature is that an individual minister is responsible for every action taken or omitted to be taken in his Ministry. In every administration, decision are taken by Civil Servants. The Minister lays down the policies. The Counsel of Minister settles the major policy. When a Civil Servant takes a decision, he does not do it as a delegate of his Minister. He does it on behalf of the Government. The Officers are limbs of the Government and not its delegates. Where functions are entrusted to a Minister and these are performed by an official employed in the Ministry’s Department, there is in law no delegation because constitutionally the act or decision of the official is that of the Minister.” Therefore, the department attached to the Ministry does not function as a delegatee as the law does not enjoin the delegation of any power but they functioned as the government and their action would be that of the Government and the Minister of the respective Ministries. In the affidavit-in-opposition, it is categorically said that the Member IT is an Ex Officio Special Secretary to Government of India and each subordinate officers in ITA division of CBDT who holds the rank of Directors/Deputy Secretary under Secretary on the Government of India are competent to process the application and forward the recommendation along with the entire records on the decision by the Union Finance Minister. The decision, in fact, is taken by the Union Finance Minister on the basis of such recognition and, therefore, it is not a decision by the CBDT or any other authority than the Union Finance Minister being the Central Government within the meaning of Section 35 (1) (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This Court, therefore, does not find that the above point sought to be raised by the petitioner is at all tenable. So far as, the second point is concerned, the division bench did not interfere with the order passed in the writ petition directing the authority to consider the same afresh. The said application does not appear to have been disposed of by the authority despite the order passed by this Court. The authority is directed to hear out the said application and shall dispose of the same within four weeks from the date of the communications of this order in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the order dated 16th April, 2012 by in W.P. 7193 (w) of 2012 and the order dated 28 November, 2013 passed in MAT 795 of 2013. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.