9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on afresh in view of the cited judicial precedence. 3. While setting aside the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT, the Tribunal in the same sentence in para No. 5 of the order has mentioned as in similar cases of local area development authorities have been held to be eligible for registration. In the body of order, the Tribunal has quoted relevant paragraph of the decision of the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the case of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, in ITA No. 1690/Luck/2003 for assessment year 2003-04 order dated 25.7.2005. The matter has accordingly been decided by the Ld. CIT afresh vide its order dated 28.12.2010 declining the requested registration to the appellant Khurja Development Authority. Against this order, the appellant has preferred present appeal. 4. In the case of the appellant Bulandshahar-Khurja Development Authority ITA No. 3875/D/2009, the action of the Ld. CIT in cancelling / withdrawing the registration already granted earlier, has been questioned. 5. In support of the grounds raised in ITA No. 905/D/2011, the Ld. AR submitted t hat the Ld. CIT while rejecting the application for registration has not appreciated the order of the Tribunal, Lucknow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant authority is not beign run on profit motive. It is also running schemes for the weaker sections of th e society, in pursuance of the Constitution of India under which, every State is responsible for town planning for the welfare of the public. Similar are the objects and activities in the case of the appellant Bulandshahar Khurja Development Authority in ITA No. 3875/Del/2009. He also cited the following decisions :- i) U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad vs. ITO and Ors. In ITA No. 690/Lue/2003 order dated 25th July, 2005. ii) Jodhpur Development Authority vs. CIT (2012) 68 DTR (Jd) (Trib) 84 iii) Jhansi Development Authority vs. CIT, ITA No. 459/Agra/2007, order dated 5/12/2008 iv) Meerut Development Authority vs. CIT, ITA No. 2783/Del/2009, order dated 11.2.2011. v) CIT vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (2011) 331 ITR 154 (All) vi) U.P. Forest Corpn. Vs. DCIT (2003)127 Taxman 527 (All) vii) Agra Development Authority vs. CIT ITA No. 66/Agra./2012 9. The Ld. AR pointed out further that the CBDT vide clauses 5,6,7 and 8 of the memorandum explaining provisions in Finance Bill 2012 reported in 342 IR 286 (statute) has made the position clear regarding applicability of second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tmental Representative on the other hand tried to justify the order impugned. He submitted that the decisions including the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. UP Housing & Development Board & Ors. (supra) relied upon by the Ld. AR having distinguishable facts hence not helpful to the appellant. The present appeals involve an issue of withdrawal of registration, which was earlier gratned u/s 12AA of the Act. In the cited cases however, registration was not withdrawn and there an issue involve was eligibility of the applicant for the registration sought for. 11. She submitted that the decisions of the Tribunal relied upon by the Ld. AR are relating to the period when proviso to section 2 (15) of the I.T. Act was not in operation. She also referred CBDT circular No. 11 dated 19.12.2008 referred by the Ld. CIT at page No. 18 of its order. She submitted that the Ld. CIT had withdrawn the registration in view of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act following the procedure for withdrawal laid down u/s 12AA (3) of the Act. 12. The Ld. CIT, Departmental Representative also referred explanatory notes by Finance Act 2008 on section 2 (!5) and the dissolution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 (15) the activities of the trust should be carried out on commercial lines with intention to make profit. Where the trust is carrying out its activities on non-commercial lines with no motive to earn profits, for fulfillment of its aims and objectives, which are charitable in nature and in the process earn some profits, the same would not be hit by proviso to section 2 (!5). The aims and objects of the assessee-trust are admittedly charitable in nature. Mere selling some product at a profit will not ipso facto hit assessee by applying proviso to section 2(!5) and deny exemption available u/s 11. The intention of the trustees and the manner in which the activities of the charitable trust institution are undertaken are highly relevant to decide the issue of applicability of proviso to Section 2 (!5). There is no material/evidence brought on record by the revenue which may suggest that the assessee was conducting its affairs on commercial lines with mtive to earn profit or has deviated from its objects as detailed in the trust deed of the assesee. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the proviso to section 2(!5) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking is not the real object." The authority below has not examined the present cases in view of the above decisions and others while coming to the conclusion that the appellants activities are trade in nature within the meaning of the provision to section 2 (!5) of the Act. 16. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Meerut Development Authority vs. CIT (Supra) has also decided an identical issue in almost similar facts in favour of the assessee, with this finding that the Ld. CIT was not justified in the withdrawing the registration granted to the assessee, besides other also on the basis that the Commissioner was not justified in cancelling the registration w.e.f. 1.4.2008, whereas the amendment was applicable from 1.4.2009. Similar are the dates in the present case of Bulandshahr Khurja Development Authority. The Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the cae of Rajasthan Housing Boards. CIT (Supra) has held as under :- "In view of the amended provisions of section 2(15), if in any years, gross receipts of a charitable institution exceed prescribed limit then in that year, assessing officer is empowered to examine allowability of exemption u/s 11 but same has no effect on re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
