TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee is a Trust engaged in Urban Development activity as per the Government Regulations. The assessee is getting the exemption u/s 11 of the Act since years. Even in the year under consideration, the assessee was granted the exemption u/s 11 in the original assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. However, later on the assessment was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act and the said exemption was denied by the AO in the order passed u/s 143(3) rws 147 of the Act. 2. In the appeal before CIT(A), the learned CIT(A) decided the legal ground regarding the validity of re-opening in favour of the assessee and held the assessment to be null and void ab-initio. However, on merits, it is held by the learned CIT (A) that the assessee is not entitled to the exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 3. The said order was received by the Accounts Officer of the assessee, Shri Shantilal Odhavji Patel who is not conversant with income tax matters, and he remained under the bonafide impression that since the matter is decided in favour of the assessee on issue of re-opening, there is no necessity to take any further action by the assessee, and hence, he did not inform anyone about the order. 4. The Department fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....353: "1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical gro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ime then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss." 6. We do not deem it necessary to re-cite or recapitulate the proposition laid down in other decisions. It is suffice to say that the Hon'ble Courts are unanimous in their approach to propound that whenever the reasons assigned by an applicant for explaining the delay, then such reasons are to be construed with a justice oriented approach. 7. After going through the explanation given by the assessee, we are of the view that the assessee has been prevented by sufficient reasons for not coming to the Tribunal well in time. It is pertinent to observe that since re-assessment orders were quashed by the ld.CIT(A), therefore, it was thought that there is no need to challenge these orders in further appeal. However, when the discussion for preparing arguments o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....declaring total income of NIL. The case was finalized u/s 143(3) on 15.03.2013 accepting the returned income. The assessee is engaged in development of urban areas m Gandhinagar, which is advancement of objects of public utility. Scrutiny of the assessment records revealed that the assessee had obtained registration u/s 12AA of the of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2002 and has been claiming exemption u/s 11 of the / Act. It is apparent from the above that the assessee earned income by rendering services for fee or-consideration. Hence, the activities of the assessee cannot he treated as "charitable activities' and accordingly the assessee will not be eligible for any exemption u/s 11- of the Act. I have therefore reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax to the above extent had escaped assessment for the above for A.Y. 2009-10 within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. I, therefore issue. notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Sd/- [Kamlesh Makwana] Date:-28/03/2014  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Section 2(15) of the Act. Accordingly, he denied exemption claimed by the assessee. Against this order of the AO, assessee went in appeal before the ld.first appellate authority. Before theld.CIT(A) it was contended by the assessee that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the AO has not found any fresh material to come to a form a belief that the income has escaped the assessment. The ld.AO was in possession of all the information with regard to the activities of the assessee viz. details of its activities, objects of the assessee, nature of services rendered and fees received by the assessee, and copies of final accounts. The AO was merely trying to review of his own order rather than reassessment of its income of the basis of any material, which was not permissible in law. Assessee has furnished all the necessary details and books of accounts fully and truly during the assessment proceedings, and there was no reason to hold that income of the assessee has been escaped so as to valid reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. It was further contended that merely due to change of opinion on the part of the AO, original assessment cannot be reopened. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs in response to the notice under section 142(1) and also reply given by the assessee in the original assessment. Even in the reasons recorded in the notice under section 148, there was no mention of adverse facts being come to the light in order to reopen the original assessment, nor any information or fresh evidence in the possession of the AO. On going through the record and the orders of the AO it is clear that the assessment was reopened merely on the basis of same set of facts, which were already available on record. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) has rightly held that action of the AO in reopening of the assessment is wrong and null and void. We do not any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue, which is upheld. 13. As far as facts and circumstances for the Asstt.Year 2010-11 are concerned, they are identical. Similar set of reasons are recorded by the AO. Copy of which is available on page no.7 of the paper book filed by the assessee along with COs. We have perused the reasons recorded by the AO and we are of the view that these are verbatim same as that of the Asstt.Year 2009-10. The finding of the CIT(A) is also identical in the Asstt.Year 2010-11. Thus, consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been reported at page no. 7 to 12 of the assessment order. The assessing officer has not accepted the explanation of the assessee. The assessing officer was of the view that the assessee was carrying out activities of providing infrastructural facilities to the public and taking various fees like betterment charges, development charges which was I.T.A No. 3621/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 3 Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority vs. DCIT in the nature of advancement of general public utility. The assessing officer has stated that assessee being urban development authority charges various types of fees from the public for providing certain amenities like roads, bridges etc. which was recovered from the beneficiaries who get benefit out of development of such common infrastructure. The assessing officer concluded that assessee's activities were out of the purview of provisions of section 2(15) of the act, therefore, its income was calculated as a normal business income and no deduction u/s. 11 and 12 were allowed to it. 4. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. During the course of appellate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....carry out the object and purpose of Town Planning Act and collected regulatory fees for the object of the Acts, no services were rendered to any particular trade, commerce or business; and whatever income was earned by the assessee even while selling the plots (to the extent of 15% of the total area covered under the Town Planning Scheme) was required to be used only for the purpose to carry out the object and purpose of the Town Planning Act and to meet the expenditure of providing general utility service to the public such as electricity, road, drainage, water etc. and the entire control was with the State government and accounts were also subjected to audit and there was no element of profiteering at all. The activities of the assessee could not be said to be in the nature of trade, commerce and business and therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act was not applicable so far as the assessee was concerned. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 11." Apart from that CIT-vs.-Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, wherein it was held as follows: "Section 2(15), read with section 11, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Charitable purpose (Objects ....