9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1920 and the Travancore Town Planning Act, 1108, vide G.O.(Ms.)No.19/76/LA&SWD dated 23.01.1976. The GCDA obtained registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By Annexure E Government order, i.e., G.O. (Ms.)No.201/94/ LAD dated 31.08.1994, the State Government extended pension scheme to the employees of the GCDA, with effect from 01.01.1994, subject to the condition that no expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of the State will be incurred on this issue. Accordingly, Part III of the Kerala Service Rules are made applicable to GCDA employees, with effect from 01.01.1994. The assessee trust was formed by the GCDA, vide Annexure A registered trust deed dated 09.02.2006, to establish a separate fund in order to operate as a recognised Provident Fund for the benefit of the managerial, supervisory and other staff of the GCDA. The words 'Provident Fund' appearing in Annexure A trust deed was substituted by the words 'Pension Fund', vide Annexure B rectification deed dated 30.01.2008. 4. The assessee trust submitted an application dated 27.06.2012 before the respondent-Commissioner of Income Tax- I, Kochi for registration under Section 12AA of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this review petition. 8. Before this Court, in ITA No.131 of 2014, the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee trust contended that, even if it is true that the distribution of pensionary benefits is to the employees of the GCDA itself, that activity of the assessee trust is a 'general public utility' attracting the provisions of clause (15) of Section 2 of the Income Tax Act and therefore, the assessee trust is entitled to registration as prayed for. The Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bar Council of Maharashtra [(1981) 130 ITR 28 (SC)], Hiralal Bhagawati v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(2000) 246 ITR 188 (Guj)], Coffee Board v. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax [(1964) 52 ITR 126 (Mys)], Commissioner of Income Tax v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce [(1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC)], Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax v. Rubber Board [(1997) 226 ITR 722 (Ker)], Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association [(1983) 140 ITR 1 (SC)] and Norka Roots v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(2010) 320 ITR 733] in support of his contentions. 9. In the judgment sought to be reviewed, this Court noticed that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire contribution towards Pension Fund is made by the GCDA, the object of the assessee trust to establish a separate fund, in order to operate as a recognised Pension Fund for the benefit of the managerial, supervisory and other staff of the GCDA is not an activity of 'general public utility' attracting the provisions of clause (15) of Section 2 of the Income Tax Act and therefore, in the judgment sought to be reviewed, this Court rightly agreed with the view taken by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Annexure D order. 13. Section 11 of the Income Tax Act deals with income from property held for charitable or religious purposes and Section 12 deals with income of trusts or institutions from contributions. As per sub-section (1) of Section 12, any voluntary contributions received by a trust created wholly for charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly for such purposes (not being contributions made with a specific direction that they shall form part of the corpus of the trust or institution) shall for the purposes of Section 11 be deemed to be income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes and the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the total receipts, of the trust or institution undertaking such activity or activities, of that previous year. 16. In the instant case, as evident from Annexure A trust deed and Annexure B rectification deed, the assessee trust was formed to establish a separate fund in order to operate as a recognised Pension Fund for the benefit of the managerial, supervisory and other staff of the GCDA. The Government, while extending pension scheme to the employees of the GCDA by Annexure E order, whereby Part III of the Kerala Service Rules are made applicable to the employees of GCDA, with effect from 01.01.1994, made it clear that, no expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of the State will be incurred on this issue. Therefore, as rightly noticed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Annexure D order, instead of paying pension directly to the employees who retired from service, the GCDA formed the assessee trust for payment of pension to its retired employees. 17. It is well settled that pension is not a charity or bounty nor is it a conditional payment solely dependent on the sweet will of the employer. Pension is in the nature of deferred payment earned for rendering long and satis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. The said object of the assessee trust cannot also be said to be an activity of 'general public utility' attracting the provisions of clause (15) of Section 2 of the Act. Therefore, the finding in the judgment sought to be reviewed that the employees of the GCDA are contributing to the Pension Fund and from out of that contribution, the employees and their dependents are getting pension, would not constitute a mistake apparent from the face of the record, coming within the review jurisdiction of this Court under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 20. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1964 SC 1372] the Apex Court held that, review is, by no means an appeal in disguise, whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for correcting patent errors. Later, in Lily Thomas v. Union of India [(2006) 3 SCC 224] the Apex Court reiterated that, the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. 21. Whilst exercising the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
