9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... employment of private security guards employed in factories and establishments in the State of Maharashtra and for making better provision for terms and conditions of their employment and welfare. Clearly, it is a welfare measure of the Government of Maharashtra and in our view, the activities of the Board cannot be said to be falling foul of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, as contended by the Commissioner. The objections raised by the Commissioner are not germane to reject the assessee’s plea for registration u/s 12A(1)(a) of the Act.- Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1379/PN/2010 - - - Dated:- 20-2-2015 - Shri G.S. Pannu And Shri R.S. Padvekar For the Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Tilak Mr. Vinaya k Joshi For the Respondent : Mr. A. K. Modi ORDER Per G. S. Pannu, AM By way of the present appeal, assessee has challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nashik (in short the Commissioner ) dated 30.09.2010 denying registration to the assessee u/s 12A(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). 2. The applicant before us is constituted as per the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employments and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore it was hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, which was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2009. It was, therefore, held by the Commissioner that the assessee was not entitled to registration u/s 12A(1)(a) of the Act. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Representative for the assessee vehemently pointed out that a similar Board constituted under the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 for Brihan Mumbai and Thane District was granted registration by the Tribunal vide order in ITA No.2080/Mum/2008 dated 30.04.2010 on an appeal filed after rejection of registration by the Commissioner. The Ld. Representative pointed out that the objection of the Commissioner that the benefit of the scheme did not extend to all the security guards has been dealt with by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Security Guards Board for Brihan Mumbai and Thane (supra). 6. In this context, we find that the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in its order dated 30.04.2010 (supra) has made the following discussion :- 7. We have noted that the basic objection of the Id. Director is that the assessee cannot be said to be engaged in object ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmercial and industrial establishments need not be covered by this special legislation because, as employees of respective commercial industrial or other establishment, their legitimate interests are taken care of. Therefore, merely because those security guards are excluded from the scope of benefits by the Board, it cannot be said that the Board is only for a particular section of general public. Ld. Director has been swayed by the considerations which are not really relevant. 9. The assessee Board is a Government run organization and it is not even the case of the Revenue, and rightly so, that activities of the assessee are not genuine. Once activities are genuine and objects are of general public utility as is the situation on the facts of this case, registration cannot be declined. As for the ineligibility of exemption of the assessee due to the points raised by the Id. Director that aspect of the materials to be examined by the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment. As held by a co-ordinate bench in the case of Agarwal Mitra Mandal Trust Vs DIT, 109 (Mum Trib) TTJ 129, an object beneficial to the section of public is an object of general public utility and to serve a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 that the said legislation is intended to regulate the employment of private security guards employed in factories and establishments in the State of Maharashtra for making better provisions in the terms and conditions of their employment and welfare through the establishment of the Boards. The applicant Board before us is with regard to the Nashik District in Maharashtra. The Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 further prescribes that the State Government by means of a scheme provide for the registration of the employers and security guards. The said statue also provides for deciding the rate of services, payment, overtime payment, leave with wages, gratuity, etc.. The statute also provides for deciding the time within which should be registered principal employer are to remit the wages payable to the registered security guards. The statute also provides for constitution of any fund or funds including, Provident Fund for the security guards. The statute also provides for the scheme by which the cost of operating the scheme is to be defrayed. The Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 was granted registration by the Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Nagpur u/s 12AA of the Act vide order dated 27.09.2012. It has also been pointed out that the Akola-Washim-Buldhana District Mathadi and Unprotected Labour Board constituted u/s 6 of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 was also granted the registration by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nagpur vide order dated 05.09.2012, copies of which has been placed on record. It was, therefore, contended that in similar situation the impugned passed by the Commissioner is unsustainable. 11. In our considered opinion, the objections raised by the Commissioner are not germane to reject the assessee s plea for registration u/s 12A(1)(a) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion and having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby set-aside the impugned order of the Commissioner and direct him to allow registration to the assessee u/s 12A(1)(a) of the Act in terms of the application moved by the assessee before him on 31.03.2010. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
