TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 600
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... received by the Appellant on 05-10-2014. 3. That after getting the appeal singed by the Mr. Ravinder Kumar Mathad the Secretary of the Authority the appellant the office clerk of the appellant left the documents in the office of the deponent on 25-11-2014 4. That the deponent was occupied in the family function (Pooja in house for Marriage Anniversary) on that date. And the office clerk of the deponent Mr Rahul Sharma mixed-up the appeal documents with other papers in the office as the filing of Income Tax returns was also in the process in the office of deponent. 5. That after some time when the Mr. Ravinder Kumar Mathad Secretary of appellant Authority inquired about the status of the filing of appeal the deponent came to know that the papers for filing of appeal had been received in the office of the deponent and due to error of the office of deponent the appeal could not be filed. 6. That thereafter the deponent located the appeal papers in his office and could file the appeal on 1 1-02-2015 i.e. late by 70 days. 7. That as stated above the delay in filing of the appeal is due to fault in the office of the deponent who is the Tax Consultant of the appellant." 4. No ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rant of registration u/s 12A is hereby rejected." 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly interpreted the proviso to Section 2(15) by Finance Act 2008. He has referred CBDT Circular No. 11/2008 dated 19.12.2008 in its synopsis dated 29.05.2017, the relevant portion is as follows: "The section 2(15) was amended vide Finance Act, 2008 by adding a proviso which states that the 'advancement of any other object of general public utility' shall not be a charitable purpose if it involves the carrying on of- (a) any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business; for a cess or fee or any other consideration, irrespective of the nature of use or application, or retention of the income from such activity. 3.2. In the final analysis, however, whether the assesses has for its object 'the advancement of any other object of general public utility' is a question of fact. If such assesses is engaged in any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or renders any service in relation to trade, commerce or business, it would n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty ITA No. 657 of 2007 (All) 7. India Trade Promotions Vs. Director General of Income Tax (2015) 374 ITR 0333 (Del). 8. The ld. DR has relied on the order of the ld. CIT and the decision of Srinagar Development Authority vs. CIT (J&K) in ITA No. 444/A/2010. He submitted that the activities of the assessee authority, are prima facie in the nature of commerce or business or rendering service in relation to trade, commerce or business and, therefore, fall under the exclusion provided in first proviso to section 2(15), i.e. its activities are not for charitable purpose. If the activities of any assessee are not for "charitable purpose", it is not eligible to claim exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act and therefore ld. CIT, Agra was right in cancelling the application for grant of registration 12A of the Act. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. The assessee authority is corporate body constituted under U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as "UPUDA Act, 1973"]. It applies for granting registration u/s 12AA of the Act. The CIT-II, Agra rejected application observing that the assessee authority is not an institution ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the activities referred to therein is twenty-five lakh rupees or less in the previous year." 13. "Advancement of any other object of general public utility" is a term of very wide connotation. In order to consider whether creation of the assessee authority is for advancement of general public utility we have to look into the objects and purposes of U.P. Act, 1973 and also the purpose of acquisition of land by assessee authority, which is only for public purpose and not personal one. 14. Learned Counsel for appellant has contended that the CIT has ignored the fact that authority was engaged in activities other than those mentioned in its main object. It is further submitted that the CIT has erred in coming to conclusion that authority carries on charitable work. It is submitted that CIT erred in considering definition of "charitable purpose" as defined under Section 2 (15). 15. That after insertion of proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act by Finance Act 2008, the issue has been examined at length by various High Courts and the Tribunal as referred by the counsel for the assessee. On similar fact and on the same issue in the case of "Lucknow Development Authority", which is also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....genuineness of the activities of the trust or institution, and (ii) about the objects of the trust or institution. Section 12A stipulates that the provisions of Sections 11 & 12 shall not apply in relation to income of a trust or an institution unless the conditions stipulated therein are fulfilled. Thus, granting of registration under Section 12AA denotes that the conditions laid down in Section 12A stand fulfilled. 26. The effect of such a certificate of registration under Section 12AAA, therefore, cannot be ignored or wished away by the Assessing Officer by adopting a stand that the trust or institution is not fulfilling the conditions for applicability of Sections 11 & 12. In the case of Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 8 CTR (SC) 371 : (1979) 117 ITR 1 (SC), the Apex Court was called upon to determine as to whether the contribution made by the employer should be treated as a business expenditure, the requirement being contribution should be made to a recognized provident fund. 27. Needless to mention that this Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. U.P. Forest Corporation Ltd., in Income Tax Appeal No. 70 of 2009 observed that the Forest Corp....