The show cause notice issued by the authority other than the prescribed authority is not valid and consequential order passed by the ld. CIT(E) is without jurisdiction.

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the tribunal whereby tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee.

2. Counsel for the appellant has framed following substantial question of law arises.

(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble ITAT is right in not appreciating the facts that the assessee has violated the condition No.2 mentioned in the order of approval granted u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act according to which "the assessee will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contribution received and maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture etc.) for any period during the previous year relevant to the assessment years mentioned specified in sub-section (5) of section 11 of the Act"

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in setting aside the order passed by CIT(E) inspite of the fact that the assessee has not invested its funds in the modes specified u/s 11(5) of the IT Act, 1961

(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in setting aside the order passed by the CIT(E) inspite of the fact that the assessee has provided undue benefit to the specified person covered u/s 13(3) of the IT Act, 1961

(iv) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in deciding that show cause notice should be signed by CIT(E) inspite of the fact that only requirement under 13th proviso to the section 10(23C) has complied by conducting personal hearing

(v) Whether on the facts ad in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in travelling beyond law in pointing defect in show cause notice, when there is no requirement of issuing notice under the 13th proviso to section 10(23C)

(vi) Whether on the fact ad in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in not appreciating the fact that the ITO(Hq.)/AC/DC(Hq.) does not have any independent power to issue such notices and they act on behalf of CIT(E) while issuing these notices

3. Counsel for the appellant has firstly taken us to the order of the tribunal and contended that the tribunal has committed an error in holding that the person who has produced in evidence has no jurisdiction and has wrongly considered the provisions of Section 10(23C) and has given the benefit to the assessee.

4. In our considered opinion, in view of the observations made by the tribunal, which reads as under:-

10. We have considered the rival submissions as well relevant material on record. The first objection of the assessee is regarding the validity of show cause notice that it was not signed by the competent authority and therefore, it is invalid. The power and jurisdiction to withdraw the approval granted u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act is provided under 13th proviso to the said section which reads as under:-

"Provided also that where the fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) is notified by the Central Government 7 [or is approved by the prescribed authority, as the case may be,] or any university or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause (vi) or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (via), is approved by the prescribed authority and subsequently that Government or the prescribed authority is satisfied that

(i) such fund or institution or trust or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution has not

(A) applied its income in accordance with the provisions contained in clause (a) of the third proviso; or

(B) invested or deposited its funds in accordance with the provisions contained in clause (b) of the third proviso; or

(ii) the activities of such fund or instituti