M/s Infrastructure Development Fund , Chandigarh V. DCIT(Exemption), Chandigah

ITA 220/CHANDI/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7899 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-08-2020
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C CHANDRAKANTA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Capital receipt
• Section: 11; 10B; 139(1); 13; 22; 20

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, A, CHANDIGARH . . , , BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 220/CHD/2020 ! ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2016-17 M/S INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND, SCO 71-75, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH #$ THE DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH % & ./PAN NO: AAALI0136K %'/ APPELLANT )*%' /RESPONDENT HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING +, - . /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PARISKHIT AGGARWAL, CA - . / REVENUE BY : SMT. C CHANDRAKANTA, CIT DR / 0 - ,1& /DATE OF HEARING : 24.08.2020 23'! - ,1& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.08.2020 / ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2020 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS)-2, CHANDIGARH [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- ITA NO. 220-CHD-2020 - INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND, CHANDIGARH 2 1. THAT ON THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE CASE, THE WORTHY CIT(A) IN APPEAL NO. 10567/2/18-19 HAS ERRED IN PASSING THAT ORDER IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF S. 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHEREIN HE ERRONEOUSLY TREATED IDC & IAC RECEIPTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 228.10 CRORES AS INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY ENTITLE D TO ONLY 1% OF THE RECEIPTS AND THE BALANCE MONEY BELONGS TO TH E STATE GOVERNMENT WHICH IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED AND UNCALLED FOR. 3. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHEREIN HE ERRED IN TREATING RS. 98.14 CRORES ON AC COUNT OF INTEREST INCOME FROM FDRS AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN WHEN THE SAID INTEREST WAS NOT INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. 4. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN NOT ALLOWING THE ACCUMULATION U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT. 5. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHEREIN HE DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING FORM 10 ELECTRONICALLY EVEN WHEN THE DELAY WAS WITH REASONA BLE CAUSE. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR ANY ADDITION , DELETION OR AMENDMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10, 2014- 15 AND 2013-14 HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL V IDE ORDER COMMON ITA NO. 220-CHD-2020 - INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND, CHANDIGARH 3 DATED 31.7.2020. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE EXACTLY SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, IT A NO. 645/CHD/2018, DECIDED VIDE COMMON ORDER DATED 31.7.2020 (SUPRA). HE HAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT EXCEPT GROUND NOS. 4 & 5 OF THE A PPEAL, ALL THE OTHER GROUNDS (GROUND NO.1 TO 3) STAND COVERED AGAINST T HE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS, GROUND NOS. 4 & 5 OF THE APPEAL ARE COVERED IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 DATED 31.7.2020. THE TRIBUNAL ADJUDICATING ON THE IDENTI CAL ISSUE, AS TAKEN VIDE GROUND NOS. 4 & 5, HAS HELD THAT IF FORM NO. 1 0 IS FILED DURING THE CONTINUATION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT SHO ULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THAT NON FILING OF THE FORM NO. 10 WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD MAY BE AN IRREGULAR ITY BUT NOT ILLEGALITY, IF THE ASSESSEE CURES THE DEFECT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION AS PROVIDED U/S 11(2) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- WE SHALL NOW TAKE UP THE APPEAL FOR A.Y 2014-15 WHE REIN THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE AS UNDER: ITA NO. 645/CHD/18 A.Y 2014-15 '1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING IDC & IAC RECEIPTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 596.7 0 CRORES AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IGNORING THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENT ITLED TO ONLY 1% OF THE RECEIPTS AND THE BALANCE MONEY BELONGS TO STATE GOV ERNMENT WHICH IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED AND UNCALLED FOR. ITA NO. 220-CHD-2020 - INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND, CHANDIGARH 4 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS O F THE CASE IN UPHOLDING INTEREST INCOME FROM FDR'S AMOUNTING TO RS. 163.21 CRORES AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WHICH IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED AND UNCAL LED FOR. 3. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE ACCUMULATION U/S 11(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WHICH IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED & UNCALLED FOR. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD , AMEND OR MODIFY ANY GROUND OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE S AME.' 13. TAKING UP FIRST THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF IDC& IAC RECEIPTS AND INTEREST ON FDR'S CREATED THEREFROM IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY, THE ARGUMENTS ,IT WAS COMMON GROUND BETWEEN BOTH THE PARTIES WAS IDENTICAL AS IN EARLIER YEARS APPEAL DEALT WITH US ABOVE, WITH THE ASSESSEE CONTE NDING THAT THE FUND BELONGED TO THE STATE WHILE THE REVENUE CONTENDING THAT IT WAS A DISTINCT AND SEPARATE ENTITY. IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR, WE FIND THAT THE FACTS DIFFER WITH THE EARLIER YEARS SINCE, BY VIRTUE OF A NOTIFICATION DATED 05-0 4-13, AMENDMENTS WERE MADE TO THE HDRUA ACT,1975,VESTING THE FUND TO A BOARD.THIS BOARD ,WE HAVE NOTED FROM THE AMENDMENTS MADE,WAS C REATED AS AN ENTITY DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FROM THE STATE. THIS I S EVIDENT FROM SECTION 3AA OF THE HDRUA ACT STATING IN CLEAR TERMS THE CON STITUTION OF THE BOARD ON ITS INCORPORATION AS A BODY CORPORATE HAVI NG PERPETUAL SUCCESSION AND COMMON SEAL AND POWER TO ACQUIRE,HOL D AND DISPOSE OFF PROPERTY AND TO CONTRACT AND SUE OR BE SUED IN ITS OWN NAME.EVEN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE BOARD, PROVIDED FOR IN THE SAID SECTION, REFLECTED THAT IT WAS DISTINCT FROM THE STATE, BY CLEARLY SHOWING THAT NOT ALL MEMBERS WERE TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE STATE AND SOME MEM BERS COULD BE NOMINATED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT . THE RELEVANT PR OVISIONS OF THE HDRUA ACT STATING SO ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR C LARITY: SECTION 3A (7) THE FUND SHALL BE COLLECTED AND MANAGED BY THE DIRECTOR AND PASSED ON FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS FURTHER UTILISATION TO THE BOARD TO BE CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR THIS PURPOSE. 3AA. ESTABLISHMENT AND CONSTITUTION OF BOARD.(1) T HE STATE GOVERNMENT SHALL, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, ESTABLISH A B OARD CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS, NAMELY:- (1) THE CHIEF MINISTER OF HARYANA. CHAIRMAN (II) THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA VICE-C HAIRMAN (III) THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA, M EMBER FINANCE DEPARTMENT (IV) THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA, M EMBER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT (V) THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA, M EMBER POWER DEPARTMENT ITA NO. 220-CHD-2020 - INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND, CHANDIGARH 5 (VI) THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA, M EMBER PWD (B&R) DEPARTMENT (VII) THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA, M EMBER TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING DEPARTMENT (VIII) THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA, M EMBER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT (IX) THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING MEMBE R DEPARTMENT, HARYANA. (X) THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, HARYANA INFRASTRUCTURE MEM BER SECRETARY DEVELOPMENT BOARD (XI) ANY OTHER PERSON(S) TO BE NOMINATED BY THE GOVERNME NT SPECIAL INVITEE (2) THE BOARD SHALL HAVE PERPETUAL SUCCESSION AND A COM MON SEAL WITH POWER TO ACQUIRE, HOLD AND DISPOSE OFF PROPERTY AND TO CON TRACT, AND MAY BY THE SAID NAME SUE OR BE SUED. THE BOARD BEING SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE STAT E IS FURTHER ESTABLISHED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 OF THE H DRUA ACT ,ENABLING AND EMPOWERING THE BOARD TO POSSESS ITS OWN PROPERT Y & ASSETS , HAVE ITS OWN FUND AUGMENTED BY BORROWING MONEY ,ENTER IN TO CONTRACTS AND UNDERTAKE VARIOUS ACTIVITIES ON ITS OWN ACCOUNT. TH E RELEVANT PROVISION ARE AS UNDER: (4) IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT ITS FUNCTIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, THE BOARD SHALL HAVE THE POWERS TO DO ALL OR ANY OF THE FOLLO WING, NAMELY:- (I) ACQUIRE, HOLD, DEVELOP OR CONSTRUCT SUCH PROPERTY, BOTH MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE, AS THE BOARD MAY DEEM NECESSARY FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY OF ITS ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUC TURE SECTORS OR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS; (II) ADVISE OR RECOMMEND TO THE GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION O F LAND UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 FOR THE PURPOSES OF INFRASTRU CTURE PROJECTS; (III) LEASE, SELL, EXCHANGE, OR OTHERWISE MAKE ALLOTMENTS OF THE PROPERTY REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (I) TO CONCESSIONAIRE AND TO MODIFY OR RESCIND ALLOTMENTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT AND POWER TO EVICT THE ALLOTTEES CONCERNED ON BREAC H OF ANY OF THE TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF SUCH ALLOTMENT; (IV) BORROW AND RAISE MONEY IN SUCH MANNER AS THE BOARD MAY THINK FIT AND TO SECURE THE REPAYMENT OF ANY MONEY BORROWED, RAISED OR OWING BY MORTGAGE, CHARGE, STANDARD SECURITY, LIEN OR OTHER SECURITY UPON THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE BOARD'S PROPERTY OR ASSETS (WHETHER PRESENT OR FUTURE), AND ALSO BY A SIMILAR MORTGAGE, CHARGE, STANDARD SECURITY, LIEN OR SECURITY TO SECURE AND G UARANTEE THE PERFORMANCE BY THE BOARD OF ANY OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY, IT MAY HAVE U NDERTAKEN OR WHICH MAY BECOME BINDING ON IT; (V) CONSTITUTE A PROFESSIONAL MULTI-DISCIPLINARY PROJEC T MANAGEMENT TEAM AND ONE OR MORE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR COMMITTEES OR SE CTORAL SUB-COMMITTEE OR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SUB-COMMITTEE, OR ENGAGE SUITABLE SE RVICE PROVIDERS OR ADVISORS OR CONSULTANTS TO ADVISE THE BOARD FOR THE EFFICIENT D ISCHARGE OF ITS FUNCTIONS; (VI) ENTER INTO AND PERFORM ALL SUCH CONTRACTS AS IT MAY THINK NECESSARY OR PEDIENT FOR PERFORMING ANY OF ITS FUNCTIONS; AND ITA NO. 220-CHD-2020 - INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND, CHANDIGARH 6 (VII) DO SUCH OTHER THINGS AND PERFORM SUCH OTHER ACTS AS IT MAY THINK NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT FOR THE PROPER CONDUCT OF ITS FUNCTIONS A ND FOR CARRYING INTO EFFECT THE PURPOSES OF CREATION OF THE BOARD, AS CONTAINED IN THIS ACT. WHAT CONCLUSIVELY EMERGES FROM THE ABOVE IS THAT TH E BOARD WAS A DISTINCT AND SEPARATE ENTITY FROM THE STATE AND I TS INCOME AND PROPERTY COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS THAT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT. 14. HAVING SAID SO ,THE QUESTION NOW ARISES WHETHER THE BOARD WAS MERELY A NODAL AGENCY OF THE STATE ,IN WHICH CIRCUM STANCE THE RECEIPTS IN THE FUND OF IDC CHARGES WOULD NOT BE REVENUE REC EIPTS OF THE FUND/BOARD.A NODAL AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT ,AS IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE,IS THAT WHICH IS DEPUTED MERELY FOR EXECUTION/IMPLEMENTATION OR SUPERVISION OR COMBINAT ION OF ALL ABOVE, FOR A PARTICULAR SCHEME OR PROJECT INITIATED BY THE GOVERNMENT. IT ONLY CHANNELIZES THE FUNDS OF THE GOVERNMENT IN PRE DETE RMINED PROJECTS/SCHEMES OF THE GOVERNMENT.NEITHER THE COLL ECTION OF FUNDS NOR ITS USAGE IS WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE NODAL AGENCY WHICH ACTS ONLY ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE SAID PURPOSES ,COL LECTING FUNDS LEVIED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND USING IT AS DETERMINED AND DI RECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT. 15. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT T HE BOARD WAS NOT MERELY IMPLEMENTING/SUPERVISING AND CHANNELIZING FU NDS TO SPECIFIC SCHEMES AND PROJECTS OF INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPED BY THE GOVERNMENT, BUT WAS IN FACT THE APEX BODY RESPONSIBLE FOR PLANN ING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS INCLUDIN G THOSE INVOLVING PRIVATE PARTICIPATION AND FUNDING, AND THEIR IMPLEM ENTATION. ALL ASPECTS RELATING TO DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING INF RASTRUCTURE PROJECTS ALONGWITH PRIVATE SECTOR, BEGINNING WITH IDENTIFYIN G SUCH PROJECTS AND THEREAFTER ENSURING ITS IMPLEMENTATION BY PROMOTING PRIVATE PARTICIPATION, IDENTIFYING TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVES T O BE TAKEN,FORMULATING POLICIES TO IDENTIFY RISKS ,IDENTIFYING BOTTLENECKS ,FORMULATING POLICIES FOR THE SECTOR, IDENTIFYING AND RECOMMENDING CONCES SIONS TO BE OFFERED TO THE PARTICIPANTS, DETERMINING THE LEVEL AND STRU CTURING OF INVESTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE PROJECTS, CREA TING AN SUV FOR IMPLEMENTING A PROJECT , ALL WERE IN THE DOMAIN OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE BOARD. THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FUND WAS ONLY ONE OF THE MANIFOLD FUNCTIONS OF THE BOARD.THIS IS CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT BY SUBSECTION (2) OF SECTION 3AA OF THE HDRUA ACT,1975 AS UNDER: 3AC. FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF BOARD.(1) THE BOARD S HALL BE THE APEX BODY FOR OVERALL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR A ND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF STATE OF HARYANA, SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATI ONS SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (3). (2) THE BOARD SHALL- (I) ACT AS A NODAL AGENCY TO C O-ORDINATE ALL EFFORTS OF THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTA TION OF INFRASTRUCTURE SECTORS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF STAT E OF HARYANA, INVOLVING PRIVATE PARTICIPATION AND FUNDING FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN T HOSE PROVIDED BY STATE BUDGET AND SHALL,- (A) IDENTIFY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS FOR PRIVATE PARTIC IPATION; ITA NO. 220-CHD-2020 - INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND, CHANDIGARH 7 (B) PROMOTE COMPETITIVENESS AND PROGRESSIVELY INVOLVE P RIVATE PARTICIPATION WHILE ENSURING FAIR DEAL TO THE END-USERS; (C) IDENTIFY AND PROMOTE TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVES IN U RBAN DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT SECTOR FOR IMPROVING EFF ICIENCY IN THE SYSTEM; (D) IDENTIFY BOTTLENECKS IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE SECTORS A ND RECOMMEND TO THE GOVERNMENT POLICY INITIATIVES TO RECTIFY THE SAME; (E) SELECT, PRIORITISE AND DETERMINE SEQUENCING OF INFR ASTRUCTURE PROJECTS; (F) FORMULATE CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT POLICIES RELATED TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE SECTORS SO AS TO ENSURE THAT PROJECT RISKS ARE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AN D ALLOCATED BETWEEN THE STAKEHOLDERS; AND (G) IDENTIFY THE SECTORAL CONCESSIONS TO BE OFFERED TO CONCESSIONAIRES TO ATTRACT PRIVATE PARTICIPATION AND SECURE AVAILABILITY OF V IABLE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES TO THE CONSUMERS; PROVIDED THAT WHERE PARTICIPATION IS SOUGHT BY ANY PERSON BY PARTICIPATING IN DISINVESTMENT PROCESS, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT S HALL NOT APPLY: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT ANY AUTHORITY OR BODY, CONSTITUTED TO IMPLEMENT SUC H DISINVESTMENT, MAY SEEK ASSISTANCE FROM THE BOARD; (II) PREPARE INTERNALLY OR THROUGH EXTERNAL CONSULTANTS OR SERVICE PROVIDERS ENGAGED FOR THE PURPOSE, ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS IN CLUDING THE BID OR TENDER DOCUMENTS, DRAFT CONTRACTS INCLUDING THE VARIOUS CO NTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS AND INCENTIVES TO BE OFFERED BY THE GOVERNMENT; (III) ASSIST PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AGENCIES AND CONCESSIO NAIRES IN OBTAINING STATUTORY AND OTHER APPROVALS; (IV) RECOMMEND THE GRANT OF CONCESSIONS TO A PUBLIC INFR ASTRUCTURE AGENCY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, THE RUL ES AND THE BYE-LAWS MADE THERE UNDER; (V) ASSIST IN DETERMINING THE LEVEL AND STRUCTURING OF INVESTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC BODIES INTO INFRASTRUCTURE PR OJECTS WITH PRIVATE PARTICIPATION INCLUDING HOLDING THE INVESTMENT OR PART THEREOF; ( VI) CREATE A SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT IN CO- ORDINATION WITH THE GOVERNMENT OR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AGENCIES; AND (VII) ADMINISTER THE FUND AND PROJECTS UNDER THIS ACT. (3) THE BOARD SHALL NOT PLAY ANY ROLE IN THE INFRAS TRUCTURE PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH ITS BUDGETARY PROVIS IONS. THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS FOR THE AMENDM ENT MADE TO SECTION 3A AND INTRODUCTION OF SECTION3AA TO THE HDRUA ACT,1975, ALSO CLEARLY BRING OUT THIS FACT OF THE BOARD BEING CREATED AS A DEDICATED AGENCY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROJEC TS IN THE STATE ALONGWITH PRIVATE PARTICIPATION , IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND NOT MERELY AS A NODAL AGENCY OF THE STATE, AS UNDER: NOTES STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS-THE SECTION 3A OF THE ACT 8 OF 1975 PROVIDES FOR CREATION OF A FUND FROM THE RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (IDC) AND INFRASTRUCTURE AUGMENTATION CHARG ES (IAC). THE SAID FUND VESTS WITH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING HAR YANA, AND IS PRESENTLY ITA NO. 220-CHD-2020 - INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND, CHANDIGARH 8 ADMINISTERED BY A HIGH POWERED COMMITTEE CONSTITUTE D FOR THE PURPOSE FOR INVESTMENT ON MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND FOR THE PURPOS E OF STIMULATING SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROWTH FOR THE BENEFIT OF STATE OF HARYANA. OWING T O THE INCREASING COMPLEXITIES INVOLVED IN SUCH INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND IN ORD ER TO LEVERAGE THE FUND AVAILABLE FOR STRUCTURING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF LARGER INFRASTRUC TURE PROJECTS IN PUBLICPRIVATE- PARTNERSHIP, THE GOVERNMENT HAS DECIDED FOR SETTING UP OF HARYANA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE BOARD ) AS A DEDICATED AGENCY FOR ENCOURAGING PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUC TURE PROJECTS ACROSS ALL SECTORS THROUGH INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCIAL STRUCT URING OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN PUBLICPRIVATE-PARTNERSHIP MODE, V IZ., BUILD-OPERATE-TRANSFER, BUILD- OWN-OPERATE-TRANSFER, JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, CONC ESSIONAIRE AGREEMENT, EQUITY PARTICIPATION BY STATE, SUBSIDY SUPPORT, INCENTIVIS ATION IN FORM OF TAX EXEMPTIONS, VIABILITY GAP FUNDING, GRANT OF GOVERNMENT GUARANTE E, ETC. THE SECTION 3AA IS ACCORDINGLY PROPOSED TO BE INTRODUCED FOR THE CONST ITUTION OF BOARD. THE SUB-SECTION 7 OF SECTION 3A IS ALSO PROPOSED FOR AMENDMENT TO ENA BLE TRANSFER OF AMOUNT COLLECTED UNDER THE FUND BY THE DIRECTOR TO THE BOARD. THE PR EAMBLE OF THE ACT IS ALSO PROPOSED FOR APPROPRIATE AMENDMENT TO REFLECT THE SAID INTEN T AND PURPOSE. THE BOARD IS LIKELY TO EVOLVE AS A 'MULTI-DISCIPLINARY TECHNO-LEGAL-FINANC IAL INSTITUTION FOR PROMOTION OF INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE' UNDER THE HARYANA DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION OF URBAN AREAS ACT, 1975, WITH PROFESSIO NALS DRAWN FROM ADMINISTRATION, ENGINEERING, TOWN PLANNING, LEGAL AND FINANCE CADRES . ENABLING PROVISION FOR APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES FOR THE BOARD HAS ACCORDINGLY BEEN MADE IN SECTION 3AB. THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE BOARD HAS BEEN DETAILED UNDER SECTION 3AC. PROVISION ENABLING THE FORMULATION OF BYE-LAWS BY THE BOARD FOR EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF THE BOARD HAS BEEN PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 3AD AND THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN EMPOWERED UNDER SECTION 3AE TO ISSUE DIREC TIONS TO THE BOARD FOR CARRYING OUT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE SECTION 24 IS ALSO P ROPOSED FOR AMENDMENT TO ADD ENABLING PROVISIONS FOR NOTIFICATION OF RULES FOR P RESCRIBING VARIOUS PROCEDURES TO BE ADOPTED FOR EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF THE BOARD. HENCE THIS BILL66 * THE BOARD THUS, WE HOLD, IS NOT A MERE NODAL AGENCY OF THE STATE. 16. THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTING ITS CONTENTION THAT IT WAS A MERE NODAL AGENCY OF THE STATE ARE ALL DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS WHERE FUNDS WERE F OUND TO HAVE BEEN CREATED FOR SPECIFIC PROJECTS TO BE EXECUTED ON BEH ALF OF THE GOVERNMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE HAVING NO CONTROL OVER OF ITS UTI LIZATION. IN THE CASE OF DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT(SUPRA) THE FUNDS WERE FOUND TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE DELHI ADMINISTRA TION FOR A SPECIFIC PROJECT OF DEVELOPMENT OF NARELA INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX . THE HONBLE COURT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY REQUIRED TO EXECUT E THE PROJECT FOR THE DELHI ADMINISTRATION. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS HELD THAT THE FUND BELONGED TO THE DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND NOT THE ASSESSEE WHO W AS ONLY A NODAL AGENCY OF THE DELHI ADMINISTRATION FOR THE PROJECT. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF KARNATAKA URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT & FIN ANCE CORPORATION (SUPRA) THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE HAVE BEEN CREA TED FOR A SPECIFIC SCHEME FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A MEGACITY AND A FUND CRE ATED FOR THE PURPOSE. IN THIS BACKDROP OF FACTS THE HON'BLE COUR T HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE A MERE NODAL AGENCY FOR EXECUTING A SPECIFIC PROJECT AND THE FUND THEREFORE NOT TAXABLE IN ITS HANDS.IN THE CASE OF S AHARANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,(SUPRA) THE FUND WAS FOUND T O HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF UTT AR PRADESH TO BE UTILIZED AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF A HIGH POWERED CO MMITTEE. THE ITA NO. 220-CHD-2020 - INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND, CHANDIGARH 9 ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THE UTIL IZATION OF THE FUNDS AND ACCORDINGLY WAS HELD TO BE A MERE NODAL AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT. 17. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE FUND VESTED IN THE B OARD WHICH WAS AN ENTITY DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FROM THE STATE AND WAS ALSO NOT A NODAL AGENCY OF THE STATE.IN VIEW OF THE SAME THE RECEIPT S OF IDC AND INTEREST ON FDR'S CREATED FROM THE IDC RECEIPTS ARE LIABLE T O TAX UNDER THE ACT. GROUND NO 1 & 2, AGITATING ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAME RESPECTIVELY ,ARE THEREFORE DISMISSED. 19. GROUND NO 3 IS AGAINST THE NON ALLOWANCE OF BEN EFIT OF ACCUMULATION OF INCOME AS PER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. BRIEFLY PUT ,THE AO, AFTER HOLDING THE IDC AND IAC ( INFRASTRUCTURE AUGMENTATION CHARG ES) RECEIPTS TAXABLE AS REVENUE RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE ,AS OPPOSED TO CAPITAL RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, AND AFTER ALLOWING REVENUE A ND CAPITAL APPLICATION OF THE SAME ,FOUND THAT THERE WAS SHORT FALL IN APPLICATION OF 85% OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ,AS STIPULATED BY LAW FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION OF INCOME FROM TAXATION U/S 1 1 OF THE ACT. THE SHORTFALL WAS FOUND TO BE RS.3,82,08,83,403/-.HE FU RTHER FOUND THE ASSESSEE INELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT OF EXCLUDING FR OM THE TOTAL INCOME, THE INCOME ACCUMULATED FOR FUTURE UTILIZATION ,AS PROVI DED BY SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT ,ON FINDING THAT IT HAD FAILED TO FUFIL THE CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN THE SECTION AND THE RELEVANT RULE 17 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES,1962, FOR AVAILING THE BENEFIT, OF FILING NOTICE OF ACCUMULAT ION IN PRESCRIBED FORM NO.10 ELECTRONICALLY BY THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETU RN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY HE DENIED THE BENEFIT OF AC CUMULATION OF THE SHORTFALL OF RS.382 CRS AND SUBJECTED THE SAME TO T AX. THIS WAS CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD. 20. THE ISSUE THEREFORE IS WHETHER THE DENIAL OF BENEFI T OF ACCUMULATION U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT WAS JUSTIFIED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 21. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT TH E MANDATE FOR FILING NOTICE OF ACCUMULATION IN FORM NO.10 BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME WAS BROUGHT ON THE STATUTE ONLY ON 01-04-2016 AND HENCE NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR, I.E A.Y 2014-15 . THAT THERE WERE JUDICIAL DECISIONS HOLDING THAT FILING THE REQ UISITE FORM DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WI TH SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING FILED ELECTRONI CALLY FORM NO.10 DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON 29-12-2016 ,THE DE NIAL OF BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION WAS NOT AS PER LAW .THE WRITTEN SUBMIS SIONS IN THIS REGARD FILED BEFORE US ARE AS UNDER: ISSUE (AY2013-14 & 2014-15) ACCUMULATION OF INCOME U/S 11(2) SUBMISSION IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT UTILIZE 85% OF THE RECEIPTS DURING THE YEAR AND AMOUNTS WHICH WERE LES S UTILIZED WERE ACCUMULATED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE UTILIZED IN FUTUR E YEARS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE FORM 10 BE FORE THE AO AT THE TIME OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. AS PER PROVISO TO THE RULE 12(2), THE FORM 10 HAS T O BE FILED ITA NO. 220-CHD-2020 - INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND, CHANDIGARH 10 ELECTRONICALLY ON OR AFTER 01.04.2014. IN THIS REGARD WE SUBMIT THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE RULES, FOR THE AY 2014-15, ONLY FILING OF FORM 10 E LECTRONICALLY WAS MANDATORY. HOWEVER, THE PROVISIONS THAT THE FORM 10 HAS TO BE FILED BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN BOUGHT IN SECTION 11 (2) AND RULE 1 7 W.E.F 01.04.2016 ONLY. THUS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE YEAR IN HAND. THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE HAS DULY FILED THE FORM 10 FOR ACCUMULATION OF INCOME BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THESE FACTS HAVE BEEN ADMITT ED BY AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED T HE FORM 10 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE CANN OT BE DENIED THE BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION U/S 11(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. FOR THIS RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: - O ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) V S. MANAV (2008) 20 SOT 0517 (DEL) O MOTI RAM GOPI CHAND CHARITABLE TRUST VS. ADDITI ONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2013) 59 SOT 0197 (DELH I) O JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SEWA EDUCA TION TRUST 27 ITR (TRIB) 0292 (AGRA) O V. RAMAKRISHNA CHARITABLE TRUST VS. DEPUTY DIRE CTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)-II (2015) 155 ITD 0727 ( CHENNAI) IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID JUDGMENTS, IT IS CLEAR THA T WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED FORM 10 BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE SAME HAS TO BE CONSIDERED. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED TH E FORM 10 MANUALLY AS WELL AS ELECTRONICALLY BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE WE REQUEST THAT THE SAME BE CONSIDERED. 22. THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND HAS RELIED HEAV ILY ON THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) POINTING OUT THEREFROM THAT THE RU LES RELATING TO FILING OF FORM NO.10,I.E RULE 17 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES,1 962,PROVIDED FOR THE FILING OF THE FORM BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILIN G OF RETURN OF INCOME. THAT THIS LIMITATION WAS INTRODUCED IN THE STATUTE IN SECTION 11(2) W.E.F 01-04-2016. THEREFORE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E THAT FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR THERE WAS NO LIMITATION FOR FILING OF FORM NO.10 WAS INCORRECT. THAT IN ANY CASE THERE WERE GROSS INCONS ISTENCIES IN THE FIGURES OF AMOUNT ACCUMULATED REPORTED IN THE AUDIT REPORT FILED IN FORM NO.10B AND THAT REPORTED IN FORM NO.10. LD.DR POINTED OUT THAT WHILE THE AUDIT REPORT REFLECTED RS.20,32,87,909/- AS ACCUMULATED FUND,FORM NO.10 FILED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SHOWED ACCUMULATION OF RS.382,08,83,404/- THAT NO PLAUSIBL E EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN OF THE DIFFERENCE EXCEPT FOR STATING THAT THE FIGURE IN THE AUDIT REPORT WAS OF THE AUDITORS WHILE IN FORM 10 IT WAS THAT OF THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE ASSESSEE FUND. THAT THE FIGURE IN FO RM NO.10 WAS THEREFORE NOT RELIABLE. IT HAS ALSO BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESEE DID NOT SPECIFY THE PURPOSE OF ACCUMULATION OF RS.20 CR S REPORTED IN AUDIT REPORT FILED IN FORM 10B,WHICH IS MANDATORY FOR CLA IMING BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION AND THEREFORE ALSO THE BENEFIT HAS BEE N RIGHTLY DENIED BY THE LD.CIT(A) .OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE FINDI NGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AT PARA 10.3.11 OF THE ORDER AS UNDER: ITA NO. 220-CHD-2020 - INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND, CHANDIGARH 11 '10.03.11 THE DETAILS OF ACCUMULATION SHOWN IN THE FORM 10 FILED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE FIGURES MENTIONED IN ORIGINAL AUDIT REPORT WHICH CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE DETAILS PUT FORTH B Y THE APPELLANT IN THE FORM NO 10 WERE RELIABLE AND THE CORRECT PICTURE WAS NOT PUT UP BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS REQUIRED FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. MORE IMPO RTANTLY THE AUDIT REPORT IN FARM 10B FILED ELECTRONICALLY HAD MENTIONED ACCUMULATION U/S 11(2) OF RS. 20,32,87,909/-BUT NO SUCH DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS FROM THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS NOT ONLY NOT FURNISHING OF FORM 10 WITHIN TIME BUT ALSO THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE AUD IT REPORT IN FORM 10B REGARDING ACCUMULATION ETC. WERE NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE D ETAILS IN THE BALANCE SHEET. IN FORM 10, THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO PUT FORTH T HE DETAILS OF ACCUMULATION, THE PURPOSE FOR ACCUMULATION ETC. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 11(2) READ WITH RULE 17 OF THE IT RULES , 1962 AND NO SPECIFIC OBJECTS FOR WHICH BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION HAS BEEN SOUGHT HAS BEEN MENTIONED. AN D THEREFORE, A.O HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE BENEFITS CLAIMED U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN DETAILED FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE SAME ARE UPHELD. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO 3 IS THEREFORE DISMISS ED. BRIEF SUBMISSIONS IN WRITING WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE US WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: ISSUE 5: (A) DENIAL OF BENEFITS OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF ACCUMULATION OF INCOME U/S 11(2) OF THE AC T. (GROUND 3 OF AY 2014-15 AND GROUND 1 OF AY 13-14) (B) NON ACCEPTANCE OF FORM NO 10 SUBMITTED DURING A SST. PROCEEDINGS (GROUND 2 OF AY2013-14) RELIANCE IS PLACE ON THE CIT(A) ORDER FOR A.Y 2014- 15 AT PARA 10 PAGES 26 TO 36 AND PARA 5 PAGES 3 TO 7 OF CIT(A) ORDER FOR A . Y 2013-14 WHERE THE VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES IN THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ISSUE OF NON FILING OF FORM 10 HAS BEEN DISCUSS ED IN DETAIL ALONG WITH RELIANCE ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. IN ADD ITION, RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE JUDGMENTS AT SR NO 6,7,8,9 OF THE CAS E LAW COMPILATION WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CA SE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 23. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. ONE OF THE REAS ON FOR DENYING BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION OF INCOME TO THE ASSESSEE U /S 11(2) OF THE ACT, WE FIND, IS THE NON-FILING OF NOTICE OF ACCUMULATIO N IN PRESCRIBED FORM NO.10 ,BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF I NCOME . CLEARLY THE SECTION DOES NOT MANDATE SUCH A LIMITATION BUT IT I S THE RULES WHICH PRESCRIBE SO .THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE PRESC RIBED FORM DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS NOT DENIED. IN IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ,THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT HAS HELD IN A NUMBER OF DECISIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN FILE FORM NO.10 AT ANY TIME DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND WHICH HAS TO BE CONSIDER ED FOR GRANTING BENEFIT U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT AND THE NON FILING OF THE SAME IS A MERE IRREGULARITY AND TECHNICAL LAPSE WHICH NEEDS TO BE CONDONED.THE ITAT ITA NO. 220-CHD-2020 - INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND, CHANDIGARH 12 HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD SO IN THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW S APTLY RELIED UPON BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE: O ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) VS. M ANAV (2008) 20 SOT 0517 (DEL) O MOTI RAM GOPI CHAND CHARITABLE TRUST VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2013) 59 SOT 0197 (DELH I) O JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SEWA EDUCA TION TRUST 27ITR (TRIB) 0292 (AGRA) O V. RAMAKRISHNA CHARITABLE TRUST VS. DEPUTY DIRE CTOR OF ;INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)-II (2015) 155 ITD 0727 (C HENNAI) IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE HOLD, THAT THE DENIAL OF BE NEFIT OF ACCUMULATION FOR DELAYED FILING OF FORM NO.10 IS NO T AS PER LAW. 4. AT THIS STAGE, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF GROUND NOS. 4 & 5 REGARDING THE LATE FILING OF THE FORM NO.10 ARE NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THESE CASE LAWS RELATES TO THE AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT PRIOR TO 2016 , WHEREAS, AS PER THE RULE 17 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 READ WITH SE CTION 11(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT W.E.F. 1.4.2016, THE ASSESSEE TO CLA IM BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION IS REQUIRED TO FILE THE FORM NO.10 ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AS SPECIFIED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISH ING OF RETURN OF INCOME. 5. HOWEVER, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF T HE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE RELEVANT PARA NOS. 22 & 23 OF THE ORDER DATED 31.7.2020 (SUPRA) TO SUBMIT THAT THE AFORESAID CONT ENTION HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE ISSUE HAS B EEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS CAS E LAWS. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR. IN VIEW OF THIS, ALL THE ISSUES ITA NO. 220-CHD-2020 - INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND, CHANDIGARH 13 ARE COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWIN G THE SAID DECISION AND FOR THE SAKE OF CONSISTENCY, GROUND NOS. 4 & 5 OF THE APPEAL ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS, GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 24.08.2020 SD/- SD/- ( . . / N.K. SAINI) ( ! / SANJAY GARG) '#$ / VICE PRESIDENT %& / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 24.08.2020 .. 4-),5676', / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. %' / THE APPELLANT 2. )*%' / THE RESPONDENT 3. / 8, / CIT 4. / 8, ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. 69),: , 1: ! , ;<=> / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. =?0 / GUARD FILE 4 / / BY ORDER, @ / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR