TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (9) TMI 109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....half of the appellant company and he came back on 2nd Nov., 1982. (c) On 3rd, 4th, 5th Nov., 1982 both these Officers were busy with disposal of highly urgent matters of the company which arose on account of certain directions issued by the U. P. Govt. so much so that they could not devote any time to the preparation of the appeal. (d) On 6th Nov., 1982, when they got breathing time, they first of all prepared the appeal and deposited the Court fees so that there may not be any further delay and the appeals were sent to the ITAT by Special Messenger. 2. On these facts, it was contended that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in filing the belated appeals. The ld. Departmental Representative opposed the condonation application on the ground that there was no sufficient cause before the assessee in filing the belated appeals. Having considered the entire matter, we are of the opinion that the ground mentioned above clearly go to show that it was beyond the control of the Managing Director and the General Manage to have filed the appeals within the prescribed time. In view of these facts, we hold that the delay was sufficiently explained and accordi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary objection. We are of the opinion that sine the representative of the assessee is present and he says that on the basis of submission, matter can be decided on merits then we prefer to hear the parties and propose to decide the appeal on merits. 5. The following two gourds had been taken by the assessee before us: (1) the appellant's income is exempt in view of s. 10(26B) of the IT Act, 1961 and (2) alternatively, the appellant is entitled to exemption under s. 10 (20A) of the IT Act. The authorised representative for the assessee contended before us that the appellant is a statutory corporation and the entire share capital of the Corporation for the time being is owned by the U. P. Government. Its liability also consists mainly of loans received from Govt. for development of house sites, for construction of houses, for construction of hospitals and for other works. It was also contended that the assessee corporation was established for promoting the interests of the members of either Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or other weaker sections of the society. The Memorandum of Association in its Article provided that the main object of the company was to achieve the followi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act, the exemption is only available to the assessee in regard to the housing scheme etc. meant for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes. This exemption is not at all available to the members of backward classes, other weaker sections of the society. It was next contended by the Departmental Representative that if there is any income of the assessee corporation it should be taxed in accordance with law. In this case at present there is no income and the ITO has recorded a finding of loss but it is not clear whether it was capital loss or not. The senior Departmental Representative placed reliance on the authority reported in Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn. vs. CIT (1985) 45 CTR (Guj) 68 : (1985) 151 ITR 255 (Guj), M. P. Warehousing Corpn. vs. CIT (1982) 133 ITR 158 (MP) and Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd. vs. CIT (1984) 38 CTR (AP) 376 : (1984) 148 ITR 497 (AP). The main submission of the senior Departmental Representative is that on the whole, the assessee corporation is not entitled for exemption under s. 10(26B) of the IT Act in view of the aforesaid facts. The assessee has filed a paper book before us containing as many as 78 papers. The senior Departmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inanced by the Central or State Governments established for promoting the interests of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes." The basic question for consideration before the CIT (A) was whether the income of the assessee-corporation was exempt under s. 10(26B). The CIT (A) considered the matter in detail in the asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79 and held that the assessee corporation was not entitled for the exemption as enumerated in s. 10 (26B) of the IT Act. It is clear from the finding of the CIT (A) recorded in the asst. yr. 1978-79 that the relief was disallowed mainly on the ground that only one of the five main objects of the company was covered by s. 10(26B) and the remaining objects of the company were not covered by the aforesaid provision of law, because the company is not obliged to restrict its activity only to this field. It cannot even totally leave this field and concentrate on others. The CIT (A) had mentioned the five main objects of the assessee-corporation and observed that the objects clause of the corporation had been provided in such a manner that it could carry on any other profit sharing activity, which may have nothing to do with the objects sough....