JUDGMENT A.J. Desai, J. 1. By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.10.2014 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-IV, Ahmedabad, under Section 10 (23C)(vi) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the respondent authority has filed an affidavit-in-reply, to which, a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. 2. The brief facts arise from the record are as under: 2.1 The petitioner - University has been established under the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009 in the year 2012, and accordingly, the name of the petitioner was entered into the Schedule of the Universities Act, 2009. 3. The present petitioner - University submitted a Form No. 56D under Rule 2CA of the Income Tax Rules and requested the authority to grant exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 and onwards. The Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - applicant, refused to grant exemption, as prayed for, mainly on the ground that the objects of the petitioner - University, are not found to be only for educational purpose but also for profit. Hence, this petition. 4. Mr. J.P. Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Rai Foundation, New Delhi and one Bhandari Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad applied to the State of Gujarat for establishment of a University, namely, Rai University under the provisions of Universities Act, 2009. The application of the petitioner was scrutinized by the Scrutiny Committee, and ultimately, considered the applications submitted by the Charitable Trust as well as Rai Foundation, and accordingly, Rai University made one of the Scheduled Universities under Section 3 of the Universities Act, 2009. 5. The Education Department of State of Gujarat published a Notification dated 19.02.2013 i.e. the First Statutes for the petitioner - Rai University. Mr. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the objects of the University are in consonance with the provisions of the Universities Act, 2009. He would further submit that the objects of the University referred in the Statute No. 3 are in consonance with Section 4 of the Universities Act, 2009, and the objects do not disclose that the University has been established to earn profit from imparting education to the students. He would further submit that the objects of the University referred in the Statute No. 3 are in consonance with Section 4 of the Universities Act, 2009, and the objects do not disclose that the University has been established to earn profit from imparting education to the students. He would submit that the funds received by the University are used only for the benefit of the University in accordance with the provisions of the Universities Act, 2009. He would submit that the case of the petitioner - University was under the provisions of Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, and therefore, the authority ought not to have refused exemption to the petitioner - University. 6. He would submit that all these specific contentions were raised before the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, however, the respondent officer has dealt with the case of the petitioner - University on an extraneous consideration, and therefore, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside, and it may be held that the petitioner is entitled for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. By taking us to the observations made in paragraphs 4 and 4.1 of the order, he would submit that the authority has misread the provisions of two Sections, namely, Sections 37 and 38 of the Universities Act by holding that the said Clauses do not restrain the University from not taking any profit. He would submit that Sections 37 and 38 binds the University established under the provisions of the Universities Act, 2009 as far as using funds received by the University and therefore, observations made therein are contrary to the provisions of Sections 37 and 38 of the Universities Act, 2009. He would submit that observations made in paragraph 5 and conclusion recorded thereof in paragraph 5.1 are not relevant while considering an application under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. He would submit that though the Board of Management of the University might be having some Trustees that would not mean that the University is not an independent body and is fully controlled by the Sponsoring Body Trust. He would submit that the observations made in the nature of the University as a legal juridical person is only on presumption and that the Trustees are the members of the Board of Management of the University are not relevant while considering the objects of institution. He would submit that the observations made in the nature of the University as a legal juridical person is only on presumption and that the Trustees are the members of the Board of Management of the University are not relevant while considering the objects of institution. He would submit that observations made in paragraphs 6 and 6.1 of the order that in case of winding up of the University, the entire assets will go back to the Sponsoring Body would mean that the University has been established for profit only is without any basis. He would submit that Section 41 of the Universities Act, 2009 provides a procedure for winding up of the Private University. Wherein the State Government has all power to accept the case of the University, and, therefore, it cannot be said that the case of the petitioner - University does not fall under Section 10 (23C)(vi) of the Act. 7. In addition to the above submissions, by relying upon the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Queen's Educational Society v. Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in [2015] 372 ITR 699 (SC), Mr. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that if the object of the University is for imparting education to the students and if some profits are made would not necessarily establish that the University has been created to earn profit. He would therefore submit that the petition be allowed and the order impugned be quashed and set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned senior counsel Mr. M.R. Bhatt appearing for the Revenue has opposed this petition. It was argued by Mr. Bhatt that the petitioner - University submitted a Form 56D on 21.11.2013 for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 by producing a provisional balance-sheet and income & expenditure account for the period ended on 30.09.2013. He would therefore submit that the application was submitted about 11 (eleven) months prior to the period prescribed under the 8th proviso to Section 23C of the Universities Act, 2009. He would submit that the details, which have been provided along with the rejoinder, which provide particulars of the income and expenditure account of the petitioner - University, is upto 31.03.2014. While the application was submitted on 21.11.2013. He would submit that the details, which have been provided along with the rejoinder, which provide particulars of the income and expenditure account of the petitioner - University, is upto 31.03.2014. While the application was submitted on 21.11.2013. He would submit that though the objects of the University, as stated in the First Statutes, may be for the purpose of expansion/maintaining the University, and for imparting education to the students. Clause 8 of the First Statutes makes it clear that the University is controlled by those persons who are in control of Sponsoring Body. By taking us through Clause 8, he would submit that the President shall be appointed by the Sponsoring Body and all the actions, which the University intends to take, would be subjected to in consultation with the President. Clause 21 of the First Statutes of the University, and particularly Clauses 21(1) and 21(5), the admissions are granted to those students on merit basis or on the basis of means which shall be determined on economic condition or the situation of the students. These provisions are contrary to the provisions of the Universities Act, 2009. He would therefore submit that the authority has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner -University has been established for profit, and therefore, the petition be dismissed. 9. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. 10. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner - University has been established under the provisions of the Universities Act, 2009, and accordingly, the same was included in the Schedule of the Universities Act, 23009 by publication in the Gujarat Government Gazette on 11.04.2012. We have perused the provisions of the Universities Act, 2009 as well as the First Statutes of the petitioner- University. Several aspects have been pleaded by both the sides with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner - University for getting exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi)of the Act. However, we would like to deal with the present case at this stage only on the ground that the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax had no occasion to deal with the case of the petitioner in absence of sufficient materials i.e. final balance-sheet showing income and expenditure account upto 31.03.2014 though the order has been passed on 20.10.2014. 11. However, we would like to deal with the present case at this stage only on the ground that the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax had no occasion to deal with the case of the petitioner in absence of sufficient materials i.e. final balance-sheet showing income and expenditure account upto 31.03.2014 though the order has been passed on 20.10.2014. 11. We are of the opinion that the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, before passing the impugned order dated 20.10.2014, ought to have perused the relevant materials with regard to the income and expenditure of the University and ought not to have decided the case on the reasons assigned in the impugned order having insufficient materials to come to the conclusion that the University is established for earning profit from imparting education to the students. The respondents authorities ought to have perused the powers of the State Government under the Private Universities Act, 2009 while dealing with the case of a University established under the said Act. The respondents authority ought to have considered the powers of the State Government provided under Section 43 of the Universities Act, 2009. Section 43 of the Universities Act, 2009 empowers the State Government to take action against the Universities in certain circumstances. 12. Therefore, in our opinion, the impugned order requires to be quashed and set aside only on the ground referred hereinabove and accordingly, quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax for a fresh consideration with regard to the application dated 21.11.2013 submitted by the petitioner - University for grant of certificate under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - University and after considering the relevant provisions of the Income-Tax Acts, powers, and the provisions of the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009. The authorities shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall deal with the submissions made by the authority including the ratio laid down by either of this Court or by any other High Courts as well as the Honourable Supreme Court while dealing with such application made under the provisions of Section 10 (23C)(vi) of the Act. 13. The above referred exercise shall be completed by the respondents authorities within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. The above referred exercise shall be completed by the respondents authorities within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since we have remanded the matter to the respondents authorities for grant of exemption on sufficient materials by the Income-Tax Officers, we have restrained ourselves from making any comments with regard to certain observations made in the impugned order. 14. Accordingly, present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs. Direct service is permitted.