JUDGMENT B.C. Patel, C.J.
1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition, inter alia, praying that (i) orders dt. 15th Nov., 2000 and 4th March, 2002, of the Chairman, CBDT, be quashed; (ii) direction be issued to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to grant approval to the lease agreements dt. 18th Oct., 1999 Under Section 10(15A) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), in respect of two aircrafts leased to respondent No. 3; and (iii) direction be issued to the CBDT to refund the amount of Rs. 10,98,42,772 withheld and paid Under Section 195 of the Act in respect of the lease rents paid to the owner of the aircrafts. In the alternative, it is prayed that a direction be issued directing the CBDT to reconsider the application Under Section 10(15A) of the Act seeking approval to the two lease agreements dt. 18th Oct., 1999 in respect of the two aircrafts leased to respondent No. 3 company.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing in this matter and we may straightaway say that we are not inclined to grant reliefs (i) to (iii). Insofar as the relief (iv) is concerned, the provisions of Section 10(15A) of the Act need to be examined. The same reads as under:
"10(15A) Any payment made by an Indian company engaged in the business of operation of aircraft, to acquire an aircraft or an aircraft engine (other than a payment for providing spares, facilities or services in connection with the operation of leased aircraft) on lease from the Government of a foreign State or a foreign enterprise under an agreement, not being an agreement entered into between the 1st day of April, 1997, and the 31st day of March, 1999, and approved by the Central Government in this behalf.
Explanatin : For the purposes of this clause, the expression 'foreign enterprise' means a person who is a non-resident;"
3. It is clear that for getting the benefit of the aforesaid provision, the approval of agreement by the Central Government is a must. In the instant case, admittedly, there is no approval by the Central Government. The respondent No. 3 took two aircrafts on lease and was required to make payments to the petitioners towards the lease. These payments at the hands of the petitioners would not be included in their income provided the Central Government had approved the agreement. So far as respondent No. 3 is concerned, it has made the payment. And, even if a part of it taken by the Revenue as tax deducted at source, it would still have discharged its obligation to pay under the lease. However, if the agreement is accorded approval, then Section 10(15A) would operate and the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 may not be required to suffer any loss on account of taxes deducted.
4. So far as the Revenue is concerned, it is contended that the petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief in this petition. We are not entering into any dispute at this stage as the Central Government was approached by the petitioner No. 3 in this behalf by way of an application. The same was rejected without a speaking order. It is contended by the Revenue that petitioner No. 3 was not a party to the agreement. However, it is not for this Court to consider all this. It will be for the Central Government to examine these aspects. It is under these circumstances, as no cogent reasons have been given, we quash the impugned orders dt. 15th Nov., 2000 and 4th March, 2002. We direct the Central Government to consider the application of the petitioners. For this purpose, the petitioners will move a fresh application in this behalf within a period of four weeks. If the application is made within four weeks, the Central Government shall decide the same within a period of six weeks thereafter by passing a speaking order.
5. The petition stands disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs.