M/s. Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar v. Addl. CIT, Haridwar

ITA 183/DEL/2012 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2012 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 18320114 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AAALH0055Q
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 183/DEL/2012
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar
Respondent Addl. CIT, Haridwar
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-07-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 27-07-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 19-07-2012
Next Hearing Date 19-07-2012
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 12-01-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN JUDICIAL MEMEBR AND SHRI B.C. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.182 & 183/DEL./2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. HARIDWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ADDL. CIT MAYAPUR HARIDWAR. HARIDWAR. (PAN : AAALH0055Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAHESH B. CHHIBBER ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI SATPAL SINGH SENIOR DR ORDER PER BENCH : BOTH THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATE F ROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) DEHRADUN BOTH DATED 15.09.2011 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SET UP BY UTTAR PRADESH GOVERNMENT WITH THE OBJECT OF DEVELOPMENT OF HARDWA R PAURI TEHRI AND PART OF DEHRADUN. ALL DEVELOPMENTAL SCHEMES AS WELL AS BEAUTIFICATION OF THESE DISTRICTS ARE TO BE DONE BY ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- GROUND NO.1: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE F ACT THAT THE ITA NO.182 & 183/DEL/2012 2 APPELLANT AUTHORITY HAS BEEN CREATED WITH THE OBJEC T OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY WHICH IS A CHARITABLE OBJECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THE AUTHORI TY HAS BEEN GRANTED EXEMPTION U/S 12AA VIDE REGISTRATION NO. 13 7/08-09 DT: 09/03/09 BY CIT DEHRADUN. GROUND NO.2: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE F ACT THAT THE POWER OF THE STATE GOVT. TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO THE ASSESSEE IS ABSOLUTE AND BY ISSUING THE G.O IN QUESTION THE ST ATE GOVT. MEANT TO OVERRIDE THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE AC T (INCLUDING THE PROVISION RELATION TO THE FUND OF THE AUTHORITY AND ITS UTILIZATION) AND DIVERT ANY PART OF ITS RECEIPT BY OVERRIDING TI TLE. GROUND NO.3: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN STATING THAT THE 'INFR ASTRUCTURE FUND' HAS NO SEPARATE LEGAL IDENTITY OF ITS OWN AND IS PA RT AND PARCEL OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY. GROUND NO.4: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.4 74 82 663/- BY THE A.O ON ACCOUNT OF DIVERSION OF FUNDS TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND BY AN OVER-RIDI NG TITLE AS PER THE STATE GOVERNMENT ORDER. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER AMEND OR DELETE ANY GROUNDS AS AND WHEN ADVISED. 4. THE LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEALS FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 HAVE BEEN RESTORED TO THE ASSES SING OFFICER WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS. IT HAS BEEN DIRECTED THAT ASSESSING OF FICER SHALL EXAMINE WHETHER THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SAID T O BE FOR THE PURPOSES OF CHARITABLE PURPOSES OF ASSESSEE AND IF NOT THEN AS SESSING OFFICER SHOULD RE- EXAMINE AND DECIDE AFRESH AS TO WHETHER THESE EXPEN SES ARE CAPITAL OR REVENUE IN NATURE. THE ITAT HAS ALSO DIRECTED THAT IF THE AO FINDS THAT THE ITA NO.182 & 183/DEL/2012 3 SAME IS CAPITAL THEN HE SHOULD ALSO DECIDE AS TO WH ETHER ANY DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE AS PER LAW. LD. AR PLEADED TO RESTORE TH E ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE IN ITA NOS .785 & 1206/DEL/2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 DATED 12 TH JUNE 2009 WHEREIN ITAT IN PARA 4 HAS DIRECTED AS UNDER:- 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT WHEN THE ORDERS ARE PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REGISTERED U/S 12AA. AFTER THE IMPUGNED ORDERS THE ASSESSEE MADE APPLIC ATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA ON 20.01.2009 AND VIDE ORDER DATED 09.03.2009 REGISTRATION U/S 12AA WAS GRANTED TO TH E ASSESSEE BUT THE SAME IS EFFECTIVE FROM 20.01.2009 BEING THE DAT E OF APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS POINTED OUT B Y CIT DEHRADUN IN HIS LETTER DATED 01.05.2009 THAT AFTER 01.06.2007 HIS OFFICE CANNOT CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPLI CATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA AND HE ADVISED THE ASSESSEE T O APPROACH CBDT U/S 119 (2) (B) FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE PROCESS TO TAKE SUITABLE STEPS IN THE MATTER. UNDER THESE FACTS WE FEEL THAT IT WILL BE FIT AND PROPER AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IF WE RESTORE THESE MATTERS BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A. O. TO FRAME A DE NOVO ASSESSMENT IN BOTH YEARS. IF BY THAT TIME THE ASSESSEE IS ABL E TO GET THE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA VALID FOR THESE TWO YEARS ALS O THE A.O. SHOULD EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SAID TO BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE C HARITABLE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IF NOT THEN THE A. O. SHOULD RE EXAMINE AND DECIDE AFRESH AS TO WHETHER THESE EXPENSES ARE CAPI TAL OR REVENUE. IF THE A.O. FINDS THAT THE SAME IS CAPITAL HE SHOU LD ALSO DECIDE AS TO WHETHER ANY DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE AS PER LAW . WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY IN BOTH YEARS. IN VIEW OF THESE DIRECTIONS OF ITAT IN EARLIER YEAR S IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THIS IS A FIT CASE TO RESTORE THE ISSUES BACK TO TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ITA NO.182 & 183/DEL/2012 4 FRAME A DE NOVO ASSESSMENT. WE RESTORE THE ISSUE T O THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTIONS THAT IF ASSESSEE GETS REGIS TRATION U/S 12AA VALID FOR THESE TWO RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO THEN ASSE SSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SAID TO BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE CHARITABLE OBJECTS. IF NOT THEN AS SESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE AND DECIDE AFRESH AS TO WHETHER THESE EXPENSES ARE CAPITAL OR REVENUE. IF ASSESSING OFFICER HELD IT TO BE CAPITAL THEN HE SH OULD EXAMINE WHETHER ANY DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE OR NOT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS WE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTIO N AS STATED ABOVE AND ALSO MENTIONED IN THE ORDER OF ITAT DATED 12 TH JUNE 2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEA LS ARE SET ASIDE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE TERMS STATED ABOVE. 6. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF JULY 2012. SD/- SD/- (A.D JAIN) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 27 TH DAY OF JULY 2012 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A) DEHRADUN. 5.CIT(ITAT) NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT NEW DELHI