DCIT(E)-2(1), Mumbai V. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Mumbai

ITA 2326/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4090 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: S R SRIRAM
• Keywords: Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 43; 32; 56; 63; 15

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) & SHRI PAVANKUMAR GADALE ( JM) I.T.A. NO. 2326/MUM/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) I.T.A. NO. 2327/MUM/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) I.T.A. NO. 2328/MUM/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) I.T.A. NO. 2329/MUM/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) I.T.A. NO. 2330/MUM/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13) I.T.A. NO. 2331/MUM/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14) I.T.A. NO. 2332/MUM/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1) ROOM NO. 519 5 TH FLOOR PIRAMAL CHAMBERS LALBAUG, LOWER PAREL MUMBAI-400 012. VS. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION UDYOG SHARATHI MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD ANDHERI EAST MUMBAI-400 093. PAN : AAACM3560C ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDE NT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI S.R. SRIRAM DEPARTMENT BY SHRI A.K. SRIVASTAVA DATE OF HEARING 06.04.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21.05.2021 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) :- THESE ARE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AGAINST RESPECTIV E ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A) FOR RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. SINCE THE I SSUES ARE COMMON AND CONNECTED THESE ARE CONSOLIDATED AND DISPOSED OFF T OGETHER. 2. SINCE THE COMMON GROUNDS ARE RAISED WE ARE REFER RING TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2008-09, WHICH READ AS UNDER : 1. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CTT(A) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT OWNERSHIP OF LA ND VESTED WITH THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND ALSO THAT THE INCOME ARISING FROM VIZ. LEASE PREMIUMS, RENT, DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES, INTEREST INCOME ON FUNDS PARKE D AS DEPOSITS WITH THE BANK ETC CANNOT BE ASSESSED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE CORPORATION FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSE E'S OWN CASE'? MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 2 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN MERELY FOLLOWING THE DECISIO N OF HON'BLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2011-12 WHERE IT WAS HE LD THAT THE LAND BELONGS TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND MERELY ITS POSSESSION WAS GI VEN TO THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE FACTS THAT THE LAND WAS LEASED BY ASSESS EE AS LESSOR THAT TOO FOR LONG PERIODS SUCH AS 30/60/90 YEARS AND TOO WITHOUT A NY REFERENCES OF GOVERNMENT OR GOVERNOR AS ALSO REQUIRED UNDER ARTICL E 299 OF CONSTITUTION, AT PRICES DETERMINED BY IT, IGNORING THE PRINCIPLE O F MEMO DAT QUOD DAT QUOD NON HABIT, SUCH TRANSFER WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REGISTR AR OFFICE AND OTHER FACTS, LEGAL POSITION FACTS AND ARGUMENTS BROUGHT OUT BY THE AO, CIT(A) AND CIT DR IN ORAL ARGUMENTS AND IN WRITTEN SYNOPSIS. 3. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE LAND BELONGS TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND MERELY ITS POSSESSION WAS GIVEN TO THE A SSESSEE MERELY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSE E'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2011-12 IGNORING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3(2) OF MIDC ACT UNDER WHICH ASSESSEE IS AN INDEPENDENT BODY INCORPORATED UNDER S ECTION 32(7) OF MIDC ACT WHICH ENVISAGE COMPULSORY TRANSFER OF LAND ACQUIR ED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO ASSESSEE FOR ITS OBJECTS AND SECTION 39 OF MIDC ACT U NDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE CAN DISPOSE OF THE LAND ONLY AFTER GOVERNME NT ACQUIRE AND TRANSFER SUCH LAND TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF H ON'BLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2011-12 WHERE IT WAS HEL D THAT THE LAND BELONGS TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND MERELY ITS POSSESSION WAS GI VEN TO THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DIGAMBER & ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5346 OF 2013, DATED 01.08.2013] WHICH AT PAGE 3-PARA 9 IT IS CLEARLY STAT ED THAT THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT 'IN FAVOUR OF THE CORPORATI ON ' AND ORDERED THAT THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION WAS TO BE PAID BY MIDC AND NOT BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT ALSO PROVING THAT THE LAND BELONGED TO MID C. 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN FOLLOWING THE DECISI ON OF HON'BLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2011-12 WHERE IT WAS HEL D THAT THE MONEY GENERATED FROM SALE/LEASE OF PLOTS, PROVIDING DEVE LOPMENT ACTIVITIES AS WELL AS EARNING ON INTEREST ON FUNDS PARKED AS DEPOSITS WI TH THE BANK BELONGED TO THE STATE GOUT, THOUGH AS PER SECTION 20 OF THE MDC ACT THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF PLOTS BECAME THE ASSESSEES OWN MONEY BY OPERATION OF LAW AND AS PER SECTION 25 OF THE MIDC ACT, THE ASSESSEE H AS AUTHORITY TO SPEND ANY SUM OUT OF SUCH FUND AND OTHERWISE ALSO THIS INCO ME CLAIMED TO BE BELONGING TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT OR EXPENDITURE OUT OF T HE SAME IS NOT PART OF THE BUDGET OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT. 6. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2011-12 WHERE RELYING O N GOVT. RESOLUTION, IT WAS HELD THAT THE LAND BELONG TO THE GOVT. DESPITE HAVING HELD IN FIRST ROUND MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 3 OF APPEAL THAT THE MIDC ACT SHALL HAVE SUPREMACY OVER TH E RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT, HENCE THE RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT CAN NOT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINING T HE STATUS OF THE AGENCY. 7. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2011-12 WHERE IT WAS HE LD THAT OWNERSHIP OF LAND VEST WITH THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND THE INCOME ARI SING THERE FROM VIZ. LEASE PREMIUMS, RENT, INTEREST INCOME ON FUNDS PARKED AS DEPOSITS WITH THE BANK ETC. BELONG TO STATE AND CANNOT BE ASSESSED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT ALSO HELD IN THEIR EARLIER ORDER DATED 27.03.2015 IN THE SAME CASE FOR A.Y.2011-12 THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AN 'AGENT' OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT WHIC H HAD BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2016 IN OR DER DATED 14.08.2018?' 8. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF H ON'BLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2011-12 WHERE IT WAS HE LD THAT OWNERSHIP OF LAND VESTED WITH THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND INCOME ARISI NG THERE FROM VIZ. LEASE PREMIUM, RENT, INTEREST INCOME ON FUNDS PARKED AS DEPOSITS WITH THE BANK ETC. CANNOT BE ASSESSED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE CORPORATION WITHOUT CONSIDERING EACH ITEM SEPARATELY IN VIEW OF THEIR OWN DIRECTIONS IN FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL TO AO IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2011-12 TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT SOME ACTIVITIES W ERE DONE BY IT ON ITS OWN ACCOUNT AND SOME ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT AND ASS ESSEE'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THESE DIRECTION TO PROVIDE SUCH BIFURCATIO NS. 9. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2011-12 WHERE IT WAS CO NCLUDED THAT THE TRANSFER OF LAND BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO ASSESSE WAS A 'REVO CABLE TRANSFER' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 61 TO 63 OF IT. ACT, BASED ON S ECTION 43IA(3) R.W.S. 32(7) AND SECTION 56 OF MIDC ACT IGNORING THE FACT THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 56 OF MIDC ACT WHEN COMES INTO OPERATION AFTER SUBSTANTI AL DEVELOPMENT OF ESTATE, WHEN THE PLOTS ARE ALREADY LEASED TO INDUSTRY AND REVOCATION OF LAND FROM ASSESSEE TO GOUT, IS NOT POSSIBLE. 10. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2011-12 WHILE DECIDING THE ABOVE ISSUE. 11. 'THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, MUMBAI BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER BE RESTORED.' 12. 'THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY'. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 4 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETU RN FOR THE AY 2008-09 ON 24.09.2008 AND SUBSEQUENTLY, FILED ITS REVISED RETU RN ON 21.07.2009. THE RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND WAS CONCLUDED VIDE AN ORDER DATED 19.12.2011 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THEREAFTER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT OF AY 200 8-09 ON THE GROUND THAT THE SUMS COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE LEASES ENTERED INTO BY IT WOULD HAVE TO BE TREATED AS ITS INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD TREATED THE RECEIPTS AS ITS LIABILITY IN ITS BALANCE SHEET, ON THE GROUND THAT THE SUMS WERE RECEIVED BY IT AND HELD BY IT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHAR ASHTRA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING VIDE AN ORDER DATED 18.03.2015 PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT AND ADDED T HEREBY THE LEASE PREMIUM AMOUNT AND OTHER RECEIPTS WHICH WERE RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA. 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LEARNED CIT(A) REFERRED A ND FOLLOWED ITAT ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2011-12 WHERE IDENT ICAL ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY LEARNED CIT(A) ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) READS AS UNDER : AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE APPELLANT ONCE A GAIN FILED AN APPEAL TO THE HON'BLE ITAT, AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 0 7.09.2018 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION S: '13. WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO THE CORE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL I.E AS TO WHETHER THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN LAW AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONCURRING WITH THE A.O THAT AS THE LANDS U NDER CONSIDERATION WERE NOT OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF MAH ARASHTRA, HENCE THE INCOME ARISING THEREFROM VIZ. LEASE PREMIU MS, RENT, INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON THE FUNDS PARKED AS DEPOSITS WITH THE BANKS ETC. WERE LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS ES CORPORATION. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS HELD BY THE HON' BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF /TO VS. CH. ATTCHAIAH (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC), IT IS OBLIGATORY ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO ASSESS THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE RIGHT PERSON AND THE RIGHT PE RSON ALONE. WE HAVE DELIBERATED AT LENGTH ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSI DERATION IN THE BACKDROP OF THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE REPRESEN TATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE EXHAUSTIVE MATERIAL PLACE D ON RECORD AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON BY BOTH THE P ARTIES TO DRIVE HOME THEIR RESPECTIVE CLAIMS. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 5 BEFORE US THAT ALL THE INDUSTRIAL LANDS ARE HELD BY TH E ASSESSEE CORPORATION ON BEHALF OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF MAHAR ASHTRA. IT IS FURTHER CLAIMED THAT THE ASSETS WHICH ARE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN NAME VIZ. BUILDINGS AND OTHER ASSETS ARE SEPARAT ELY SHOWN IN ITS OWN NAME IN ITS 'BALANCE SHEET'. WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED VIEW THAT THE ISSUE AS TO IN WHAT STATUS THE LANDS UNDER CONSIDERA TION WERE HELD BY THE ASSESSES CORPORATION CAN BE APPRECIATED IN T HE BACKDROP OF THE SCHEME OF THE 'MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COR PORATION ACT, 1961' [FOR SHORT 'MIDC ACT']. WE FIND FROM A PERUSAL OF THE MIDC ACT THAT THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION VIZ. MIDC HAD BEEN ESTABL ISHED FOR SECURING AND ASSISTING RAPID AND ORDERLY ESTABLISHME NT AND ORGANISATION OF INDUSTRIES IN INDUSTRIAL AREAS AND I NDUSTRIAL ESTATES IN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. ON A PERUSAL OF SEC. 3(2) O F THE MIDC ACT, IT EMERGES THAT THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION VIZ. MIDC IS COM PETENT TO ACQUIRE, HOLD AND DISPOSE OFF PROPERTY, BOTH MOVEAB LE AND IMMOVABLE, AND TO CONTRACT AND DO ALL THINGS NECESSARY FOR THE PUR POSES OF THE ACT. STILL FURTHER, A PERUSAL OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION AS CONTEMPLATED IN 'SEC. 14(II) OF THE MIDC ACT REVE ALS THAT THE SAME PARTICULARLY INCLUDES VIZ. (I). ESTABLISHING AND MANA GING INDUSTRIAL ESTATES AT PLACES SELECTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT; (II ). DEVELOPING INDUSTRIAL AREAS SELECTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE AND MAKE THEM AVAILABLE FOR UNDERTAKINGS TO ESTABLISH THEM SELVES; AND (HI). UNDERTAKING SCHEMES OR WORKS, EITHER JOINTLY WITH OTHER CORPORATE BODIES OR INSTITUTIONS, OR WITH GOVERNMENT OR LOCAL AUTH ORITIES, OR ON AN AGENCY BASIS, IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PURPOSE FOR WH ICH THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION IS ESTABLISHED AND ALL MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH. STILL FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION AS PROVIDED IN SEC . 15 OF THE MIDC ACT INTERALIA STANDS VESTED WITH THE POWERS VIZ. (I). TO ACQUIRE AND HOLD SUCH PROPERTY, BOTH MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE AS THE ASS ESSEE CORPORATION MAY DEEM NECESSARY FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY OF ITS ACTIVITIES AND TO LEASE, SELL, EXCHANGE OR OTHERWISE TRA NSFER ANY PROPERTY HELD BY IT ON SUCH CONDITIONS AS MAY BE DEE MED PROPER BY IT; (II). TO PURCHASE BY AGREEMENT OR TO TAKE ON LEASE OR U NDER ANY FORM OF TENANCY ANY LAND, TO ERECT SUCH BUILDINGS AND TO EXECU TE SUCH OTHER WORKS AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYI NG OUT ITS DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS; (III), TO PROVIDE OR CAUSE TO BE PROVI DED AMENITIES AND COMMON FACILITIES IN INDUSTRIAL ESTATES AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS AND CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN OR CAUSE TO BE MAINTAINED WORKS AND BUILDINGS THEREOF; (IV) TO MAKE AVAILABLE BUILDINGS O N HIRE OR SALE TO INDUSTRIALISTS OR PERSONS INTENDING TO START INDUSTRIA L UNDERTAKINGS; (V). TO CONSTRUCT BUILDINGS FOR THE HOUSING OF THE EM PLOYEES OF SUCH INDUSTRIES; (VI). TO ALLOT FACTORY SHEDS OR SUCH BUIL DINGS OR PARTS OF BUILDINGS, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL TENEMENTS TO SUITABLE PERSONS IN THE INDUSTRIAL ESTATES ESTABLISHED OR DEVELOPED BY THE AS SESSEE CORPORATION; AND (VII). TO MODIFY OR RESCIND SUCH AL LOTMENTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT AND POWER TO EVICT THE ALLOTTEES CONCERNED ON BREACH OF ANY OF THE TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF THEIR ALLOTMENT. WE FIND F ROM A PERUSAL OF THE AFOREMENTIONED FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE ASSESS EE CORPORATION THAT IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS OBJECT OF ESTABLISHING AND D EVELOPING INDUSTRIAL ESTATES AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS SELECTED BY THE STATE MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 6 GOVERNMENT FOR THE SAID PURPOSE, THE ASSESSEE CORPO RATION SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE MIDC ACT IS VESTED WITH THE POWE RS OF ACQUIRING AND HOLDING PROPERTY AND LEASING, SELLING, EXCHANGI NG OR TRANSFERRING THE SAME ON SUCH CONDITIONS AS IT MAY DEEM FIT, AS WEL L AS PURCHASING OR TAKING ON LEASE OR UNDER ANY FORM OF TENANCY ANY L AND, ERECT BUILDINGS ON THE SAME AND MAKE THE SAME AVAILABLE ON HIRE OR SALE TO INDUSTRIALISTS OR PERSONS INTENDING TO START INDUSTRIA L UNDERTAKINGS. STILL FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION AS PER SEC. 1 7 OF THE MIDC ACT ALSO STANDS VESTED WITH THE POWER TO LEVY FEES OR SERVI CE CHARGES FOR PROVIDING AMENITIES OR COMMON FACILITIES VIZ. MAINTE NANCE OF ROADS, DRAINAGE, WATER SUPPLY, PROVIDING OF STREET LIGHTING ETC IN SUCH INDUSTRIAL ESTATES AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS ON THE PLOT HO LDERS OR OTHER PERSONS RECEIVING BENEFIT OF SAID SERVICES OR AMENI TIES. FURTHER, PERUSAL OF SEC. 19 OF THE MIDC ACT REVEALS THAT THE PRO PERTY, FUND AND OTHER ASSETS VESTING IN THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION SHALL B E HELD AND APPLIED BY IT, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS AND THE PURPO SES OF THE SAID ACT. 14. WE FURTHER FIND FROM A PERUSAL OF SEC. 32 OF THE MIDC ACT THAT IN CASE THE STATE GOVERNMENT IS OF THE OPINION THAT ANY LAN D IS REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT BY THE ASSESSEE CORP ORATION, OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE SAID ACT, THEN AFTER PUTTING THE OWNER OF THE LAND OR ANY OTHER PERSON INTE RESTED THEREIN TO NOTICE AS REGARDS ITS DECISION OF ACQUIRING SUCH LAN D, CALLING FOR HIS OBJECTIONS AND DISPOSING OFF THE SAME AFTER AFFORDI NG AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO SUCH PERSON, THE STATE GOVERNMENT SHALL ACQUIRE SUCH LAND BY PUBLISHING A NOTICE IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE. ON A PERUSAL OF SUB- SECTION (4) OF SEC. 32 OF THE MIDC ACT, IT EMERGES TH AT WHEN A NOTICE UNDER SEC. 32(1) OF THE ACT IS PUBLISHED IN THE OFFIC IAL GAZETTE, THE LAND SHALL, ON AND FROM THE DATE OF SUCH PUBLICATION, VEST ABSOLUTELY IN THE STATE GOVERNMENT FREE FROM ALL ENCUMBRANCES. STILL FU RTHER, AS PER SUB-SECTION (5) OF SEC. 32 OF THE MIDC ACT, WHERE AN Y LAND IS VESTED WITH THE STATE GOVERNMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SE C. 32 OF THE MIDC ACT, THEN THE STATE GOVERNMENT MAY BY NOTICE IN W RITING ORDER ANY PERSON WHO MAY BE IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND TO SU RRENDER OR DELIVER POSSESSION THEREOF TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT OR A NY PERSON DULY AUTHORISED BY IT IN THIS BEHALF WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF T HE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE. AS PER SUB-SECTION (7) OF SEC. 32 OF THE MIDC ACT, AFTER THE LAND HAD BEEN ACQUIRED FOR THE ASSESSEE. CORPORATION OR AN Y LOCAL AUTHORITY, THE STATE GOVERNMENT SHALL, AFTER IT HAS TAKEN POSSESS ION THEREOF, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE TRANSFER THE LAND TO THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION OR THAT LOCAL AUTHORITY, AS THE CASE MAY B E, FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS ACQUIRED AND THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 43-1A OF THE MIDC ACT SHALL THEREAFTER BE APPLICABLE. AS PER SEC . 43-1A OF THE MIDC ACT, FOR THE FURTHERANCE OF THE ACT, THE STATE GOVE RNMENT MAY BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, UPON SUCH CON DITIONS AS MAY BE AGREED BETWEEN IT AND THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION, PLAC E AT THE /ALTERS DISPOSAL THE LANDS VESTED IN THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THA T AFTER SUCH LAND IS DEVELOPED BY, OR UNDER THE CONTROL AND SUPERV ISION OF THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION, IT SHALL BE DEALT WITH BY THE CO RPORATION IN MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 7 ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS MADE, AND DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN THIS BEHALF. ON A PERUSAL OF SUB-S ECTION (3) OF SEC. 43-1A, IT EMERGES THAT IF ANY LAND PLACED AT THE D ISPOSAL OF THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SEC. 43 -1A IS REQUIRED AT ANY TIME THEREAFTER BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT, THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION SHALL REPLACE IT AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE STATE GOVERNMEN T UPON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS MAY BE MUTUALLY AGREED UPON . WE FURTHER FIND THAT AS PER SEC. 33 AND SEC. 36 OF THE MIDC ACT, WHERE ANY LAND IS ACQUIRED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT UNDER CHAPTER VI OF THE ACT, THE COMPENSATION FOR ACQUISITION OF THE SAME SHALL BE PAI D BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE SAID STATUTORY PROVISION. STILL FURTHER, IN CASE THE COMPENSATION IS NOT PAID OR DEPOSITED ON OR BEFORE TAKING THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND, THEN AS PER SEC. 38 OF THE MI DC ACT THE STATE GOVERNMENT SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY THE SAID AMOUNT ALON GWITH INTEREST DETERMINED AT THE RATE OF FOUR PERCENT PER ANNUM FROM T HE DATE OF TAKING OF POSSESSION OF THE SAME TILL THE SAID AMOUNT I S PAID OR DEPOSITED. 15. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT A BARE PERUSA L OF THE SCHEME OF THE MIDC ACT, AND THE ABSENCE OF ANY INSTRUMENT OF TRA NSFER EVIDENCING VESTING OF THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION, BOTH MILITATES AGAINST THE OBSER VATIONS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND HAD BE EN TRANSFERRED TO ASSESSEE CORPORATION. WE THUS, IN THE BACKDROP OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS NEITH ER THERE IS ANY MATERIAL BORNE FROM RECORD, NOR ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCE HAD BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE US BY THE REVENUE WHICH COULD IRREF UTABLY DISLODGE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREIN PERSUADE US TO CO NCLUDE THAT EITHER THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND UNDER CONSIDERATION HA D BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION, OR THE LATTER C OULD JUSTIFIABLY BE HELD AS A DEEMED OWNER OF THE SAME FOR THE PURPO SE OF JUSTIFYING ASSESSING OF THE INCOME ARISING THEREFROM VIZ. LEASE PREMIUMS, RENT, INTEREST INCOME ON FUNDS PARKED AS DEPOSITS WITH THE B ANK ETC., AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION, HENCE THE SAID C LAIM OF THE REVENUE FAILS AND IS THUS REJECTED. THE GROUNDS OF A PPEAL NOS. 1,4,5,7,8 AND 14 ARE ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORES AID OBSERVATIONS. 10. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE APPELLANT RELIED UPON THE A BOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE ORDER IN ITS OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2011-12 AND CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ACTING AS AN AGENT OF TH E GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA AND THUS, THE INCOME IN QUESTION IN THE FORM OF LEASE PREMIUM, RENT, INTEREST ON BANK DEPOSITS, ETC. DOES NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE BUT TO THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA. I FIND THAT THE ABOVE JU DGMENT OF THE ITAT FOR A.Y. 2011-12 WOULD EQUALLY APPLY TO THE FACTS OF TH E SUBJECT YEAR. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT FOR A.Y. 2011-12 AND FACTS FOR THE YEAR IN APPEAL. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. BOTH THE PARTIES FAIRLY AGREED MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 8 THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 4474/MUM/2017 FOR A.Y. 2011 -12 VIDE ORDER DATED 7.9.2018. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT HON'BLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT HAS NOT YET REVERSED THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE ITAT. HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, THESE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.5.2021. SD/- SD/- (PAVANKUMAR GADALE) (SHAMIM Y AHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED :21/05/2021 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) PS ITAT, MUMBAI