TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (1) TMI 163
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t., 2010 (copy enclosed). 3. The learned CIT-1 has grossly erred in observing (in the order simultaneously passed in case of JDA, which took over UIT under the respective Acts,) that the appellant did not comply with the notices issued pursuant to submission of application for registration in prescribed Form 10A under s. 12A. The appellant never committed any default and had duly complied with all the notices and made written submissions on each such date of hearing. It was explained in written submissions dt. 28th Sept., 2010 that the alleged defaults pointed out in show-cause notice are patently erroneous, as the assessee had duly complied with. Since the learned officers were out of station, written submissions on the appointed day were duly submitted. Such facts stated in written submissions have not been rebutted by the learned CIT and correctness of assessee's submission are also corroborated by the acknowledgement given by the Department on such letters. The impugned order has been passed against the principles of natural justice and fair play. 4. The learned CIT has erred in placing reliance upon "many newspapers cuttings" (in the order simultaneously passed in ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... s. 12A/12AA in view of the fact that the IT Department has granted registration under s. 12A/12AA to Jaipur Development Authority with retrospective effect under identical facts and circumstances. The learned CIT has grossly erred in brushing aside the aforesaid fact merely by observing that the Department has not accepted the decision of the Tribunal and has filed an appeal under s. 260A before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of JDA, Jaipur. (Observations made in the order simultaneously passed in case of JDA, which took over UIT under the respective Acts). Likewise, the learned CIT has grossly erred in not accepting the binding precedents of jurisdictional High Court and other Courts cited before him. 10. The learned CIT-1 has erred in making an ex parte presumption that the assessee has not fulfilled the requirement of getting the accounts audited by an accountant as defined in s. 288(2) and has not filed audit report in the prescribed form along with the returns of income. Such basis for rejection has been adopted by the learned CIT-1, without giving any opportunity whatsoever to the appellant. That on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of UIT or in their separate names of JDA/UIT was clearly allowable with retrospective effect from asst. yr. 2003-04. The learned CIT has grossly erred in rejecting the applications for grant of registration under s. 12A/12AA with retrospective effect without giving any valid reasons whatsoever. 13. The impugned order under s. 12AA passed by the learned CIT is bad in law and on the facts and may kindly be quashed and may be declared to be null and void and the learned CIT may be directed to grant registration under s. 12A/12AA from asst. yr. 2003-04." 2.2 The assessee filed an application in Form 10A on 22nd March, 2010 for registration under s. 12A(a) of the Act. The assessee Jodhpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred as JDA) was created by the Governor of Rajasthan under Jodhpur Vikas Pradhikaran Adhiniyam, 2009. The learned CIT directed the AO to submit the report on the application filed by JDA. The AO required the assessee to furnish certain details but such details were not furnished before him. The AO therefore, submitted his report on the basis of the materials available on record with him. In the report, the AO mentioned that JDA derives income from sale o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or any other consideration, irrespective of nature of use or application, or retention of the income from such activity. According to the learned CIT, the assessee acquires/buys land, develops land by providing amenities and thereafter selling the plots/shops. The activity of the assessee is similar to the activity of a builder. The entire operation is carried out in a systematic commercial way. The learned CIT was therefore, of the opinion that proviso to s. 2(15) of the Act is applicable. The learned CIT further observed that in the case of JDA (Jaipur Development Authority), the proviso to s. 2(15) was not considered. The decision has not been accepted by the Department and the appeal has been filed under s. 260A of the Act before Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. The learned CIT further observed that the assessee has not got its accounts audited and has not filed the return. The request for condonation of delay was also rejected. It was further observed that the assessee never existed in the financial year 2003-04 and therefore, the registration cannot be granted with effect from financial year 2003-04. 2.4 We have heard both the parties. The grounds of appeal are elaborate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge, town planning and development, roads, markets, transportation, social welfare services, etc., etc. Broadly we may say that they may be entrusted with the performance of civic duties and functions which would otherwise be Governmental duties and functions. Finally, they must have the power to raise funds for the furtherance of their activities and the fulfilment of their projects by levying taxes, rates, charges, or fees. This may be in addition to moneys provided by Government or obtained by borrowing or otherwise. What is essential is that control or management of the fund must vest in the authority.'" The definition was based on functional test. An Explanation was introduced to s. 10(20) of the Act vide which the local authority was defined. In view of definition of local authority as contained in s. 10(20), the earlier decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of R.C. Jain (1981) 2 SCC 308 cannot be applied for holding an authority as local authority on the basis of the functional test. Reference is made to the decision of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Agricultural Produce Market Committee (supra ). 2.5 The then Union Finance Minister by his letter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The objects of JDA have been defined under the Jodhpur Development Act, 2009. As per cl. 16 of the Jodhpur Development Act, 2009, JDA was required to make urban planning including preparation of master plan and zonal development plan. The JDA was to execute the objects for the development of Jodhpur region and to prepare the master plan for traffic control and management. There are other similar objects. Thus the objects of the JDA are in the nature of public utility. It is not the case of Revenue that profit from the activity of acquiring land and selling it after development can be distributed in any manner to the members. In case of dissolution, the assets are to be vested in the State Government. The contention of the Revenue that the activities carried out by the assessee are in no way different from the activities carried out by a builder developing large colony. The word 'business' has been defined in s. 2(13) of the IT Act and it includes any trade, commerce or manufacture or any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce of manufacture. Hence, in the instant case, the authority might be selling certain property at market rate through auction after develo....