M/s Doon Valey Special Area Development Autority,, Dehradun v. DCIT,, Dehradun

ITA 2131/DEL/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 213120114 RSA 2009
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 2131/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant M/s Doon Valey Special Area Development Autority,, Dehradun
Respondent DCIT,, Dehradun
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 01-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 01-02-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 01-02-2010
Next Hearing Date 01-02-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 20-05-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JM AND SHRI R.C.SHARMA A M ITA NO.2130/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 M/S DOON VALLEY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 30/2 MOHINI ROAD DEHRADUN. PAN NO.AAALD0125F. VS. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 DEHRADUN. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.2131/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S DOON VALLEY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 30/2 MOHINI ROAD DEHRADUN. PAN NO.AAALD0125F. VS. DCIT (OSD) CIRCLE-1 DEHRADUN. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.2132/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S DOON VALLEY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 30/2 MOHINI ROAD DEHRADUN. PAN NO.AAALD0125F. VS. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1 DEHRADUN. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CROSS-OBJECTION NO.211/DEL/2009 (IN ITA NO.2131/DEL/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) RANGE-1 DEHRADUN. VS. M/S DOON VALLEY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 30/2 MOHINI ROAD DEHRADUN. PAN NO.AAALD0125F. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA-2130/D/2009 & FOUR OTHERS 2 CROSS-OBJECTION NO.220/DEL/2009 (IN ITA NO.2132/DEL/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1 DEHRADUN. VS. M/S DOON VALLEY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 30/2 MOHINI ROAD DEHRADUN. PAN NO.AAALD0125F. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAHESH B.CHHIBBER ADVOCATE. REVENUE BY : SHRI MANISH GUPTA AR. ORDER PER BENCH : THESE ARE THE APPEALS AND CROSS-OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR AY 2004-05 2005-06 & 2006-07 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE THE DOON VA LLEY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WAS SET UP AS PER U.P. GOVERN MENT G.O. DATED 11.3.1987 WITH AN OBJECTIVE OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIAL AREA AND MAINTAINING ECOLOGICAL BALANCE OF THE AREA. IT WAS SUBMITTED B Y THE LEARNED AR THAT IT IS AN ORGANIZATION WITH AN OBJECTIVE OF DOING WORK WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY DONE BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES I.E. OF SANCTIONING OF MAPS A ND COLLECTION OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ETC. AND HAS SAME POWERS WHICH A NAGAR MAHA PALIKA HAS UNDER THE UTTAR PRADESH NAGAR MAHAPALIKA ADHINIYAM 1959 FOR THE PU RPOSE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION. IN ADDITION TO ABOVE OBJECTS ITS OBJECT IS ALSO PROVIDING BASIC AMENITIES TO THE PEO PLE OF SPECIAL AREA WHICH INCLUDE ROADS AND STREETS WATER & ELECTRIC SUPPLY PARKS PLAYGROUNDS DRAINAGE & SEWERAGE PUBLIC WORKS AND OTHER UTILITIES AND OF N OT EARNING PROFIT. FURTHER CONTENTION OF LEARNED AR WAS THAT IN ALL THESE YEAR S THE AO HAS PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION WHEREAS AS PER ORDER OF CIT ITA-2130/D/2009 & FOUR OTHERS 3 DEHRADUN DATED 29.1.2010 THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA W.E.F. 23.7.2009. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE ORDER OF I TAT I BENCH DELHI IN THE CASE OF HARIDWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ORDER DATED 12.6.2009 WHEREIN UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE MATTER WAS RES TORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR EXAMINING THE APPEALS AFRESH IN TERMS OF DIRECT IONS GIVEN THEREIN. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDE RS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOU ND FROM THE RECORD THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE AO BY OBSERVING THAT WHEN THE INCOME IS EARNED TAXABILITY OF THE INCOME IS NOT D EPENDENT UPON ITS DESTINATION OR THE MANNER OF ITS UTILIZATION. WHEN THE IMPUGNED O RDER WAS PASSED BY THE AO DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REGISTERED U/S 12AA AND AFTER THE IMPUGNED ORDERS THE ASSESSEE FILED A N APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA ON 23.7.2009 AND THE CIT DEHRADUN HAD ALSO GR ANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA W.E.F. 23.7.2009 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.1.2010. T HUS IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT DATED 29.1.2010 THAT IT WAS MADE EFFECTIVE ONLY FROM 23.7.2009 THEREFORE NOT RELEVANT FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. CO NTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR WAS THAT AFTER 1.6.2007 THE CIT IS NOT EMPOWERED TO CO NDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA AFTER THE PER IOD FALLING PRIOR TO IT AND THEREFORE APPROPRIATE COURSE OF ACTION LIES BEFORE THE CBDT U/S 119(2)(B) FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. LEARNED AR CONTENDED THAT AS SESSEE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF TAKING SUITABLE STEPS IN THE MATTER. WE FIND THAT UNDER THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN IT S ORDER DATED 12.6.2009 (SUPRA) WAS 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 AR E PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REGISTERED U/S 12AA. AFTER THE IMPUGNED ORDERS THE ASSESSEE MADE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA ON 20.01.2009 AND VIDE ORDER DATED 09.03.2 009 ITA-2130/D/2009 & FOUR OTHERS 4 REGISTRATION U/S 12AA WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE B UT THE SAME IS EFFECTIVE FROM 20.01.2009 BEING THE DATE OF APPLICA TION BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS POINTED OUT BY CIT DEHRADUN IN HIS LETTER DATED 01.05.2009 THAT AFTER 01.06.2007 HIS OFFICE CANNOT CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/ S 12AA AND HE ADVISED THE ASSESSEE TO APPROACH CBDT U/S 119(2)(B) FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE PROCESS TO TAKE SUITABLE STEPS I N 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 FIL E OF THE AO TO FRAME A DENOVO ASSESSMENT IN BOTH YEARS. IF BY THAT TIME THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO GET THE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA VALID FOR THE SE TWO YEARS ALSO THE AO SHOULD EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER THE EXPENSES IN CURRED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SAID TO BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE C HARITABLE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IF NOT THEN THE AO SHOULD REEXAMIN E AND DECIDE AFRESH AS TO WHETHER THESE EXPENSES ARE CAPITAL OR REVENUE. IF THE AO FINDS THAT THE SAME IS CAPITAL HE SHOULD ALSO DECI DE AS TO WHETHER ANY DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE AS PER LAW. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY IN BOTH YEARS. 5. AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DURING ALL THE YE ARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE SAME RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL WE RESTORE ALL THE APPEALS TO THE AO FOR DECIDING AFRESH IN TERMS OF DIRECTIONS G IVEN IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 12.6.2009 STATED HEREINABOVE. LEARNED DR HA S NO OBJECTION FOR THE SAME. WE THEREFORE DIRECT THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN T ERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. 6. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS AND CROSS-OBJECTI ONS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST FEBRUARY 2010. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (R.C.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 01.02.2010. VK. ITA-2130/D/2009 & FOUR OTHERS 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT DEPUTY REGISTRAR