2021 (7) TMI 761

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... involved in both these appeals, they are being decided together for the sake of convenience. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Development Authority set up by Uttar Pradesh Government with the object of development of Hardwar, Pauri, Tehri and part of Dehradun. All developmental schemes as well as beautification of these Districts are to be done by the assessee. The original assessment for AY 2007-08 was framed u/s 143(3) after making addition of Rs. 4,74,82,663/- being amount transferred to Infrastructure Development Fund as revenue receipt in the Income and Expenditure a/c. The assessing officer also disputed the charitable nature of activities carried out by assessee in terms of section 2(15) of the Income Ta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in allowing the amount transferred directly to the balance sheet Rs. 4,74,82,663/- on a/c of Infrastructure Development Reserve Fund. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowed the exemption u/s 11 and 12AA of I.T. Act, 1961 to the assessee. 3. The order of Ld. CIT (A) be cancelled and the order of the AO be restored." Grounds of appeal in ITA No.4617/Del/2017: "1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law the facts in allowing the amount transferred directly to the balance sheet Rs. 4,15,92,437/- on a/c of Infrastructure Development Reserve Fund. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowed the exemption u/s 11 and 12AA of I.T. Act, 1961. 3. The order of Ld. CIT (A) be cancelled and the order of the AO be res....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 3.3 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the assessment order. However, she did not dispute the legal position arising from the order of ITAT and the Hon'ble High Court in assessee's own case. 4.0 We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the facts of the case. The surviving issue before us is regarding the charitable status of the respondent-assessee u/s 12A of the Act and validity of claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We find that the denial of claim of exemption by the assessing officer in the remand proceedings was on the ground that registration certificate u/s 12AA issued to the assessee stood cancelled by the Ld. CIT (Exemption). The Ld. CIT (A) consi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the ITAT was dismissed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court vide order dated 18/07/2017 in Income Tax Appeal No. 90 of 2015. 3.8 In the present case, the assessing officer denied the benefit of exemption only on the ground of cancellation of registration u/s 12AA of the Act without assigning any further reason. However, in the light of the order of the Coordinate bench of this Tribunal and it being upheld by the Hon'ble High Court, the very basis of denial of benefit u/s 11of the Act, as adopted by the assessing officer, stands vitiated and non-existent. Moreover, while deciding appeals for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 in ITA Nos. ITA No. 6796/Del/17 and ITA No.5320/Del/17 on the issue of correctness of claim of exemption u/s 11 vis-à....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of ITAT and Hon'ble High Courts in other cases of statutory authorities formed with similar objects which in our view supports the case of the assessee authority. 3.7 We also draw strength from ratio laid down in following decisions: i. ITO (E) v. Saharanpur Development Authority (ITA No. 4113/D/17) (24/03/2021) (Delhi-Trib) ii. Jhansi Development Authority v. DCIT [2021] 123 taxmann.com 247 (Agra - Trib.) iii. CIT v. Ghaziabad Development Authority (ITA No. 2400/D/14) (Delhi-Trib) iv. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation v. ACIT (ITA No. 278/Ahd/13) (Ahmedabad-Trib.) v. Bangalore Development Authority v. Addl. CIT [2019] 104 taxmann.com 266 (Bangalore-Trib.) vi. Gujarat....