District Integrated Facilitation Centre ( SETU ), Solapur V. ACIT, Solapur

ITA 2356/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 235624514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S PRAVEENA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Reasonable cause
• Section: 12AA; 6; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE: SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S. 2356, 2357, 2358 & 2359 / P N/ 20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2004 - 05 TO 2007 - 08 DI STRICT INTEGRATED FACILITATION CENTRE (SETU), COLLECTORS COMPOUND, SOLAPUR VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 2, SOLAPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAALC0450C APPELLANT BY: SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE RESPONDENT BY: SMT. S. PRAVEEN A DATE OF HEARING : 1 4 - 07 - 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 - 0 7 - 2014 ORDER PER R.S . PADVEKAR , JM : - THIS BATCH OF FOUR APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - III, PUNE DATED 15 - 12 - 2011 & 29 - 11 - 2011 RES PECTIVELY AND THIS APPEALS PERTAIN TO THE A.YS. 2004 - 05, 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08. THE FACTS AS WELL AS ISSUES ARISING IN THESE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL THE FOUR YEARS HENCE, THESE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONV ENIENCE. 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 145 DAYS IN FILING OF THESE APPEALS . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES ON THE ISSUE OF DELAY CONDON ATION. W E FIND THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILI NG THESE APPEALS WITHIN A PERIOD OF LIMIT ATION PRESCRIBED U/S. 253 (3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT. WE, ACCORDINGLY, CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING ALL THESE APPEALS AND ADMIT THE APPEALS. 2 ITA NO S. 2356 TO 2359/PN/2012, DISTRICT INTEGRATED FACILITATION CENTRE (SETU), SOLAPUR 4. THE G ROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS IDENTICAL IN ALL THE APPEALS SAVE T HE QUANTUM OF INCOME. WE, THEREFORE, REPRODUCE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2004 - 05 WHICH IS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN ASSESSING THE INCOME AT RS.2,28,300/ - AS INC OME OF THE APPELLANT TRUST WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THEM, APPELLANT TRUST SUBMIT THAT SAME SHALL BE CONSIDERED AND RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED. 5. THE SOLITARY ISSUE WHICH ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS WHE THER THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS TAXABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME - TAX ACT. THE FACTS WHICH ARE REVEALED FROM THE RECORD AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE IS STATED TO BE A TRUST CONSTITUTED AS PER THE G.R. NO. COM1002/LN240/02/39 DATED 23 - 08 - 2002 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF MAH ARASHTRA. THE ASSESSEE RUNS CITIZEN FACILITATION CENTERS (SETU) TO IMPLEMENT THE E - GOVERNANCE SCHEME FORMULATED BY THE GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA FOR FACILITATING THE SUPPLY OF COPIES OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND CERTIFICATES OF THE GOVT. RECORD. T HE PRESENT ASSESSEE IS A SETU FOR THE SOLAPUR DISTRICT AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR IS A CHAIRMAN AND OTHER SR. GOVT. OFFICIALS ARE MEMBERS. 6. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS THAT AS PER THE G.R. ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF MAH ARASHTRA REFERRED TO ABOVE , THE CONCEPT OF THE SINGLE WINDOW SCHEME WAS IMPLEMENTED THROUGH E - GOVERNANCE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC AT LARGE COPIES OF VARIOUS CERTIFICATES/DOCUMENTS OF THE GOVT. RECORD AT ONE PLACE. AS PER THE SCHEME, EVERY DISTRICT WOULD SET UP O NE SUCH FACILITATION CENTRE (SETU) WHICH WOULD BE REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860 AS WELL AS BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT. THERE IS AN APEX BODY AT THE STATE LEVEL CONSTITUTED BY FOLLOWING MEMBERS: 3 ITA NO S. 2356 TO 2359/PN/2012, DISTRICT INTEGRATED FACILITATION CENTRE (SETU), SOLAPUR I) CHIEF SECRETARY : PRESIDENT II) SR. SECRETARY (ADMIN.) : MEMBER III) SR. SECRETARY (FINANCE) : MEMBER IV) SR. SECRETARY (PLANNING) : MEMBER V) SR. SECRETARY (REVENUE & FOREST) : MEMBER VI) SR. SECRETARY (INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY) : MEMBER VII) DIRECTOR (INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY) : MEMBER 7. SIMILARLY, THE SETU AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL IS CONSTITUTED BY FOLLOWING MEMBERS: I) DISTRICT COLLECTOR : PRESIDENT II) DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE : MEMBER III) C.E.O. OF DISTRICT COUNCIL (ZILLA PARISHAD) : MEMBER IV) STATE EXCISE DISTRICT IN CHARGE : MEMBER V) TRANSPORT DISTRICT IN CHARGE : MEMBER VI) DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER : MEMBER VII) DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL OFFICER : MEMBER VIII) DISTRICT CITY SURVEY OFFICER : MEMBER IX) MANAGING DIRECTOR TELEPHONE DEPT. : MEM BER X) ANY OTHER OFFICER OF CENTRAL OR STATE GOVT. : MEMBER AS APPOINTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR XI) PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER : MEMBER XII) DEPUTY DISTRICT COLLECTOR : MEMBER 8. WE ARE CONCERNED HERE WITH THE DISTRICT LEVEL BODY AND THE FUNCTIONS OF THE DISTRICT LEVEL CENTRE (SETU) WHICH FUNCTIONS ARE GIVEN IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS UNDER: - TO ACTIVATE THE CENTRE. - TO DECIDE THE TYPE OF SERVICES TO BE RENDERED AS PER THE GUIDELINES. 4 ITA NO S. 2356 TO 2359/PN/2012, DISTRICT INTEGRATED FACILITATION CENTRE (SETU), SOLAPUR - TO SUPERVISE THE CENTRE. - TO CHARGE THE FACILITATION FEES THROUGH THE CENTRE. - TO MAKE AVAILABLE THE FUNDS FOR SETTING UP OF CENTRE. - TO APPOINT THE AGENCIES FOR RUNNING THE CENTRE. - TO MAKE THE PAYMENT TO THIS AGENCIES AS PER THE AGREEMENT. - TO REVIEW THAT THERE IS TIMELY COMPLETION OF SUBMISSION OF DO CUMENTS TO PUBLIC AT LARGE. - TO MONITOR ANY FAILURES IN TIMELY SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS TO PUBLIC AT LARGE AND TO FIX UP SUCH RESPONSIBILITY ON SUCH FAILURE. - TO KEEP SEPARATE ACCOUNTS OF THE CENTRE. - TO START THE NEW SERVICES AND TO IMPROVE ON THE CURRE NT SERVICES, AND OFFER A SUGGESTION TO THE STATE GOVT. IN THIS REGARD. 9. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED THE REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT W.E.F. 01 - 04 - 2008 BUT SO FAR AS THE ASSESSMENT YEARS BEFORE US ARE CONCERNED , THE ASSESSEE DO NOT HAVE THE REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CLAIM BENEFITS OF SEC. 11 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT. 10. AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ARGUMENT THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE IS TO BE EXAMINED ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE PROVISION S OF SEC. 10(20) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT . HE ARGUED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN BY THE SAID PROVISION AND HENCE, THE ENTIRE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS EXEMPT. THE LD. COUNSEL REFERRED TO PAPER BOOK TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION THAT THE A SSESSEE IS COVERED IN THE DEFINITION OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. THE LD. COUNSEL PLACED HIS HEAVY RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VS. R.C. JAIN AND ORS. 1981 AIR 951 (SC) AS WELL AS THE DECISION IN TH E CASE OF 5 ITA NO S. 2356 TO 2359/PN/2012, DISTRICT INTEGRATED FACILITATION CENTRE (SETU), SOLAPUR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, NARELA VS. CIT & ANR. 305 ITR 1 (SC). HE ARGUE S THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS AN OCCASION TO INTERPRET THE TERM LOCAL AUTHORITY IN THE CASE OF R.C. JAIN & ORS. (SUPRA). HE ARGUES THAT EVEN IF THE DE FINITION OF THE LOCAL BODY HAS BEEN INSERTED BY WAY OF E XPLANATION BELOW TO SEC. 10(20) W.E.F. 01 - 04 - 2003 BUT THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF R.C. JAIN & ORS. (SUPRA) STILL HOLD AS THE GOOD LAW. HE SUBMITS THAT HE IS MAINLY CONCERN WITH CLAUSE - (II I) IN E XPLANATION BELOW TO SEC. 10(20) AND AS THE ASSESSEE IS ENTRUSTED WITH THE LOCAL FUNDS HENCE, IT PARTAKES THE CHARACTER OF THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND DISTRICT BOARD. HE VEHEMENTLY ARGUES THAT THE TE S T LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF R.C. JAIN & ORS. (SUPR A) ARE TO BE APPLIED IN THE BROADER SENSE. HE PLEADS FOR HOLDING THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AS A LOCAL AUTHORITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 10(20) OF THE INCOME - TAX A CT. 10.1. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR WHO SUBMITS THAT THE LAW IS WELL EXPLAINED AFTER THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 10(20) OF THE ACT BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, NARELA (SUPRA). HE ARGUES THAT ONCE THE DEFINITION OF ANY EXPRESSION OR TERM IS GIVEN IN THE ACT IN THAT SITUATION THE DEFINITIONS IN TH E GENERAL CLAUSES ACT CANNOT OVERRIDE THE SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS GIVEN IN THE PARTICULAR STATUTE. HE PLACED HIS HEAVY RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, NARELA (SUPRA) AND SUBMITS THAT THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF R.C. JAIN & ORS. (SUPRA) ARE PRIOR TO THE INSERTION OF THE EXPLANATION TO SEC. 10(20) AND THERE IS THE EXPRESSION LOCAL AUTHORITY IS DIFFERENTLY WORDED IN THE INCOME - TAX ACT AND THE G ENERAL CLAUSES ACT AND THE SA ID DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE DECISION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, NARELA (SUPRA). HE PLEADED FOR CONFIRMING THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BY CONCLUDING HIS ARGUMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT 6 ITA NO S. 2356 TO 2359/PN/2012, DISTRICT INTEGRATED FACILITATION CENTRE (SETU), SOLAPUR B E TREATED AS LOCAL AUTHORITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 10(20) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT. 11. WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE ARISING IN THIS CASE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE S INCOME IS EXEMPT UNDER THE INCOME - TAX ACT, WE ARE ONLY CONCERNED AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNS EL WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 10(20) OF THE ACT. SEC. 10(20) READS AS UNDER: SEC. 10 (20) THE INCOME OF A LOCAL AUTHORITY WHICH IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, CAPITAL GAINS OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OR FROM A TRADE OR B USINESS CARRIED ON BY IT WHICH ACCRUES OR ARISES FROM THE SUPPLY OF A COMMODITY OR SERVICE (NOT BEING WATER OR ELECTRICITY) WITHIN ITS OWN JURISDICTIONAL AREA OR FROM THE SUPPLY OF WATER OR ELECTRICITY WITHIN OR OUTSIDE ITS OWN JURISDICTIONAL AREA. EXPLAN ATION. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, THE EXPRESSION LOCAL AUTHORITY MEANS (I) PANCHAYAT AS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (D) OF ARTICLE 243 OF THE CONSTITUTION99; OR (II) MUNICIPALITY AS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (E) OF ARTICLE 243P OF THE CONSTITUTION1; OR (III ) MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND DISTRICT BOARD, LEGALLY ENTITLED TO, OR ENTRUSTED BY THE GOVERNMENT WITH, THE CONTROL OR MANAGEMENT OF A MUNICIPAL OR LOCAL FUND; OR (IV) CANTONMENT BOARD AS DEFINED IN SECTION 3 OF THE CANTONMENTS ACT, 1924 (2 OF 1924); 12. ON PERUSAL OF THE GOVT. G.R. NO. COM1002/LN240/02/39 DATED 23 - 08 - 2002 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA , IT IS SEEN THAT THE BASIC OBJECT OF CONSTITUTING THE INTEGRATED CITIZEN FACILITATION CENTRE (SETU) IS FOR HARNESSING THE BENEFITS OF INFORMATI ON TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE ONE STEP SERVICE CENTRE FOR ALL SUCH ROUTINE MATTERS LIKE TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES/LICENSES/LAND RECORDS ETC. WITHOUT WAITING IN QUEUE OF 7 ITA NO S. 2356 TO 2359/PN/2012, DISTRICT INTEGRATED FACILITATION CENTRE (SETU), SOLAPUR WINDOW AND AT ONE PLACE BY DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE PUBLIC. IT IS PROPOSED TO SET UP THE SETU AT TH E DISTRICT AS WELL AS TALUKA LEVEL FOR IMPLEMENTING THE G.R. THE BASIC OBJECT OF THE INTEGRATED CITIZEN FACILITATION CENTRE (SETU) AT DISTRICT AND TALUKA LEVEL IS TO PROVIDE SERVICES OF VARIOUS GOVT. DE PARTMENTS IN THE GIVEN TIME AT ONE PLACE, BY USING IN FORMATION TECHNOLOGY WHICH WILL AVOID THE DISSIPATION OF TIME, MONEY AND LABOR OF PUBLIC. IN THE G.R. ITSELF THE NAME OF THE INTEGRATED CITIZEN FACILITATION CENTRE IS GIVEN AS SETU . WE HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SETU AT DISTRICT AS WELL AS TALUKA LEVEL . W E HAVE ALSO NARRATED HERE - IN - ABOVE THE FUNCTIONS OF THE SETU AT DISTRICT LEVEL. AS PER THE SCHEME FORMULATED IN THE G.R. FRONT END OF THE SETU CENTRE IS TO BE MANAGED BY NON - GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION ( NGO ) ON BOT (BUILD, OPERATE A ND TRANSFER) BASIS AND BACK END IS TO BE KEPT UNDER THE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT. THE ROLE OF N GO IS OF AN AGENT BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC AND THE FRONT END EMPLOYEES OF NGO WILL PROVIDE THE SERVICES SUCH AS MAKING AVAILABLE BLANK APPLICAT ION FORMS, STAMP PAPERS, ATTACHMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED AND OTHER INFORMATION, TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION FORMS OF PUBLIC TO VERIFY DOCUMENTS, REGISTERING THE APPLICATIONS RECEIVED IN THE COMPUTER AND IN CASE THE APPLICATION IS INCOMPLETE TO ISSUE A DISCLAIMER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ETC. THE BACK END WORK IS UNDER THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF THE GOVT. OFFICERS. THE GOVT. OFFICERS IS EXPECTED TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES/DOCUMENTS IN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT WITH ITS SIGNATURE AND STAMP. SO FAR AS FRONT END OF THE SETU CENTRE IS CONCERNED THE NGO IS TO BE APPOINTED BY INVITING TENDERS AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF INVITING ARE MENTIONED IN PARA NO. 6 OF THE G.R. SO FAR AS FUNDS AND INFRASTR UCTURE OF THE SETU IS CONCERNED AS PER PARA NO. 10 OF THE G.R. DISTRICT COLLECT OR/OFFICERS SHOULD MAKE AVAILABLE A PLACE OR BUILDING FREE OF COST FOR SOCIETY. IT IS ALSO PROVIDED THAT THE FUNDS REQUIRED FOR SETTING UP SETU CENTRE SHOULD BE UTILIZED THROUGH MEMBER 8 ITA NO S. 2356 TO 2359/PN/2012, DISTRICT INTEGRATED FACILITATION CENTRE (SETU), SOLAPUR OF PARLIAMENT/MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ETC. THE VARIOUS SERVICE S PROVIDED BY SETU ARE GIVEN IN PARA NO. 11 OF THE G.R. WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 11. VARIOUS STAGES OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY SETU AN INTEGRATED CITIZEN FACILITATION CENTRE: 11.1. THE OBJECTIVE BEHIND SETTING UP THE SETU CENTER IS TO MAKE AVAILABLE SERVICES OF V ARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AT ONE PLACE, WHERE COMMON PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO DO ANY TRANSACTION SMOOTHLY RELATING TO ANY OFFICE, WHEREVER IT ASSESSMENT YEAR BE SITUATED. THROUGH THESE CENTERS SERVICES CAN BE AVAILED IN FOLLOWING STAGES. FIRST STAGE: SERVICES REL ATED TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT: - THESE CENTERS CAN INITIALLY START AS SINGLE WINDOW SYSTEMS OF THE COLLECTORATES, TO FACILITATE AND ISSUE CERTIFICATES, PERMITS, AFFIDAVITS, ETC. - IT CAN QUICKLY EXPAND ITS WORK TO REGISTER AND REDRESS PUBLIC GRIEVANCES. - IS SUING PROPERTY CARDS AS WELL AS 7/12 EXTRACT COULD BE TAKEN UP AS SOON AS THE RECORDS ARE COMPUTERIZED. - THE WORK OF ISSUE OF RATION CARD, ADDITION, DELETION OF NAMES, ETC. CAN ALSO COM TO THESE CENTERS. SECOND STAGE : FACILITY OF COLLECTING AMOUNT AT ON E PLACE: - THESE CENTERS CAN BECOME A COMMON POINT FOR PAYMENT OF BILLS FOR ALL GOVERNMENT UTILITIES. THIS COULD INCLUDE ELECTRICITY BILLS OF MSEB, BEST, WATER BILLS AND PROPERTY TAXES OF MUNICIPAL BODIES. THIRD STAGE: WORK OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS: - REGISTRATI ON OF BIRTH AND DEATH. ISSUE OF BIRTH AND DEATH CERTIFICATES. - TRADE LICENSES, REGISTRATION UNDER SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENT ACT. - LICENSES ISSUED BY AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT. - REGISTRATION FOR EMPLOYMENT COULD BE COVERED BY THESE CENTERS. - ANOTHER POSSIBILITY COU LD BE TO PROVIDE SERVICES OF THE TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT. - ISSUE OF LEARNERS LICENSE, ISSUE AND RENEWAL OF DRIVING LICENSE, REGISTRATION OF NEW AND OLD VEHICLE PERMITS FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, PUBLIC VEHICLES TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF VEHICLES ETC. - SERVICES OF THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT COULD BE PROVIDED. 9 ITA NO S. 2356 TO 2359/PN/2012, DISTRICT INTEGRATED FACILITATION CENTRE (SETU), SOLAPUR FOURTH STAGE: - THE APPLICATION FOR PASSPORT COULD BE COLLECTED AND FORWARDED TO THE PASSPORT OFFICE. - TELEPHONE BILL COULD ALSO BE COLLECTED AT THESE CENTERS. 11.2. THE OBJECTIVE BEHIND SETTING UP SETU CENTER I S TO MAKE AVAILABLE SERVICES OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENT AT ONE PLACE TO THE CITIZENS. AS A SETU CENTER CAN BE SETUP FOR PROVIDING SERVICES OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AT ONE PLACE AT THE SAME TIME IT CAN ALSO BE SETUP FOR PROVIDING SPECIFIC SERVICES SO THAT THE WOR K LOAD OF SETU CENTER WILL BE REDUCED AND TIME OF THE APPLICANTS WILL BE SAVED. 13. IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE G.R. ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA , THE ASSESSEE IS SET UP AND THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR IS THE CHAIRMAN. AS NOTED HERE - IN - ABOVE THE ASSESSEE IS REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT AND THE MEMORANDUM OF THE ASSOCIATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FROM PAGE NOS. 12 TO 20. 14. THE MAIN PLANK OF THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL IS THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A LOCAL BODY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 10(20) AND FOR THAT PROPOSITION HE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF R.C. JAIN & ORS. (SUPRA). IN THE CASE OF R.C. JAIN & ORS. (SUPRA), THE ISSUE WAS UNDER THE PAYMENT OF BONUS ACT, 1965. SEC. 32(IV) OF THE PAYMENT OF BONUS ACT PROVIDES THAT NOTHING IN THE ACT SHALL APPLY TO EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED BY AN ESTABLISHMENT ENGAGED IN ANY INDUSTRY CARRIED ON BY OR UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF ANY DEPARTMENT OF THE CENTRAL GOVT. OR STATE GOVT. OR A LOCAL AUTHORITY . TH E QUESTION BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS WAS WHETHER THE DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (IN SHORT DDA), IS A LOCAL AUTHORITY AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE P AYMENT OF BONUS ACT (IN SHORT THE BONUS ACT) MORE PARTICULARLY BY SEC. 32(IV) OF THE ACT. THE DDA HAS NOT PAI D THE BONUS TO HIS EMPLOYEES. THE MATER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH 10 ITA NO S. 2356 TO 2359/PN/2012, DISTRICT INTEGRATED FACILITATION CENTRE (SETU), SOLAPUR COURT OF DELHI WHICH WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE EMPLOYEES. THE GOVT. OF INDIA /DDA CHALLENGED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AN D IN THAT CONTEXT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT EXAMINED THE EXPRESSION LOCAL AUTHORITY AS ENVISAGED UNDER THE P AYMENT OF BONUS ACT . T HE VERDICT WAS GIVEN IN FAVOUR OF DDA BY HOLDING THAT THE DDA IS A LOCAL AUTHORITY AND THE P AYMENT OF BONUS ACT IS NOT APPL ICABLE TO EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED BY THE DDA. 15. THE DECISION OF THE R.C. JAIN & ORS. (SUPRA) WAS AGAIN EXPLAINED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, NARELA (SUPRA) (IN SHORT APMC). IN THE CASE OF APMC PRECISE LY THE EXPRESSION LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS COME FOR THE CONSIDERATION IN THE CONTEXT OF SEC. 10(20) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. IN THE CASE OF APMC ALSO IT WAS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS A LOCAL AUTHORITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 10(20) AND HENCE, THE ENTIRE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS EXEMPT. THE APEX COURT AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION INSERTED TO SEC. 10(20) AS WELL AS AFTER EXAMINING THE SCHEME OF THE DELHI AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING (REGULATION) ACT, 1998 , HELD AS UNDER: 26. AT THE OUTSET, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT PRIOR TO FINANCE ACT, 2002, THE SAID 1961 ACT DID NOT CONTAIN THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD 'LOCAL AUTHORITY'. THAT WORD CAME TO BE DEFINED FOR THE FIRST TIME BY FINANCE ACT, 2002 VIDE THE SAID EXPLANATION/DEFINITION CLAUSE. 27. CERTAIN G LARING FEATURES CAN BE DECIPHERED FROM THE ABOVE COMPARATIVE CHART. UNDER S. 3(31) OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897, 'LOCAL AUTHORITY' WAS DEFINED TO MEAN 'A MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, DISTRICT BOARD, BODY OF PORT COMMISSIONERS OR OTHER AUTHORITY LEGALLY ENTITLE D TO THE CONTROL OR MANAGEMENT OF A MUNICIPAL OR LOCAL FUND. THE WORDS 'OTHER AUTHORITY' IN S. 3(31) OF THE 1897 ACT HAS BEEN OMITTED BY PARLIAMENT IN THE EXPLANATION/DEFINITION CLAUSE INSERTED IN S. 10(20) OF THE 1961 ACT VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2002. THEREFORE , IN OUR VIEW, IT WOULD NOT BE CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE ENTIRE DEFINITION OF THE WORD 'LOCAL AUTHORITY' IS BODILY LIFTED FROM S. 3(31) OF THE 1897 ACT 11 ITA NO S. 2356 TO 2359/PN/2012, DISTRICT INTEGRATED FACILITATION CENTRE (SETU), SOLAPUR AND INCORPORATED, BY PARLIAMENT, IN THE SAID EXPLANATION TO S. 10(20) OF THE 1961 ACT. THIS DELIBERATE OMI SSION IS IMPORTANT. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT VARIOUS HIGH COURTS HAD TAKEN THE VIEW PRIOR TO FINANCE ACT, 2002 THAT AMC(S) IS A 'LOCAL AUTHORITY'. THAT WAS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DEFINITION OF THE WORD 'LOCAL AUTHORITY' IN THE 1961 ACT. THOSE JUDGMENTS PROCEEDED PRIMARILY ON THE FUNCTIONAL TESTS AS LAID DOWN IN THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT VIDE PARA 2 IN THE CASE OF R.C. JAIN (SUPRA). WE QUOTE HEREINBELOW PARA 2 WHICH READS AS UNDER : '2. LET US, THEREFORE, CONCENTRATE AND CONFINE OUR ATTENTION AND ENQUIRY TO T HE DEFINITION OF LOCAL AUTHORITY IN S. 3(31) OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT. A PROPER AND CAREFUL SCRUTINY OF THE LANGUAGE OF S. 3(31) SUGGESTS THAT AN AUTHORITY, IN ORDER TO BE A LOCAL AUTHORITY, MUST BE OF LIKE NATURE AND CHARACTER AS A MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE , DISTRICT BOARD OR BODY OF PORT COMMISSIONERS, POSSESSING, THEREFORE, MANY, IF NOT ALL, OF THE DISTINCTIVE ATTRIBUTES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF A MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, DISTRICT BOARD OR BODY OF PORT COMMISSIONERS, BUT, POSSESSING ONE ESSENTIAL FEATURE, NAMELY , THAT IT IS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO OR ENTRUSTED BY THE GOVERNMENT WITH, THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF A MUNICIPAL OR LOCAL FUND. WHAT THEN ARE THE DISTINCTIVE ATTRIBUTES AND CHARACTERISTICS, ALL OR MANY OF WHICH A MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, DISTRICT BOARD OR BODY OF PORT COMMISSIONERS SHARES WITH ANY OTHER LOCAL AUTHORITY ? FIRST, THE AUTHORITIES MUST HAVE SEPARATE LEGAL EXISTENCE AS CORPORATE BODIES. THEY MUST NOT BE MERE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES BUT MUST BE LEGALLY INDEPENDENT ENTITIES. NEXT, THEY MUST FUNCTION IN A DEFINED AREA AND MUST ORDINARILY, WHOLLY OR PARTLY, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BE ELECTED BY THE INHABITANTS OF THE AREA. NEXT, THEY MUST ENJOY A CERTAIN DEGREE OF AUTONOMY, WITH FREEDOM TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES QUESTIONS OF POLICY AFFECTING THE AREA ADMINIS TERED BY THEM. THE AUTONOMY MAY NOT BE COMPLETE AND THE DEGREE OF THE DEPENDENCE MAY VARY CONSIDERABLY BUT, AN APPRECIABLE MEASURE OF AUTONOMY THERE MUST BE. NEXT, THEY MUST BE ENTRUSTED BY STATUTE WITH SUCH GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES AS ARE USUALLY ENTRUSTED TO MUNICIPAL BODIES, SUCH AS THOSE CONNECTED WITH PROVIDING AMENITIES TO THE INHABITANTS OF THE LOCALITY, LIKE HEALTH AND EDUCATION SERVICES, WATER AND SEWERAGE, TOWN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, ROADS, MARKETS, TRANSPORTATION, SOCIAL WELFARE SERVI CES, ETC. BROADLY, WE MAY SAY THAT THEY MAY BE ENTRUSTED WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF CIVIC DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE GOVERNMENTAL DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS. FINALLY, THEY 12 ITA NO S. 2356 TO 2359/PN/2012, DISTRICT INTEGRATED FACILITATION CENTRE (SETU), SOLAPUR MUST HAVE THE POWER TO RAISE FUNDS FOR THE FURTHERANCE OF THEIR ACTIVITIES AND THE FULFILMENT OF THEIR PROJECTS BY LEVYING TAXES, RATES, CHARGES, OR FEES. THIS MAY BE IN ADDITION TO MONEYS PROVIDED BY GOVERNMENT OR OBTAINED BY BORROWING OR OTHERWISE. WHAT IS ESSENTIAL IS THAT CONTROL OR MANAGEMENT OF THE FUND MUST VEST IN THE AU THORITY.' 28. AS STATED ABOVE, IT HAS BEEN ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS THAT AMC(S) IS NOT A MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE. THE WORDS 'MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE' FINDS PLACE IN ITEM (III) OF THE SAID EXPLANATION. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANTS, ALTHOUGH AMC (S) IS NOT A MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE STILL IT IS A 'LOCAL AUTHORITY' OF A LIKE NATURE AND CHARACTER TO THAT OF A MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE PERFORMING MUNICIPAL FUNCTIONS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO CONTROL THE LOCAL FUND, NAMELY, THE MARKET FUND. FOR THAT PROPOSITION RELIANCE IS PLACE D ON PARA 2 OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF R.C. JAIN (SUPRA), AS QUOTED HEREINABOVE. HOWEVER, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF R.C. JAIN (SUPRA) WAS REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER 'DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY' IS A 'LOCAL A UTHORITY' AS ITS EMPLOYEES STOOD OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF PAYMENT OF BONUS ACT, 1965. UNDER S. 32(IV) OF THE PAYMENT OF BONUS ACT, 1965 IT IS STATED THAT NOTHING IN THE SAID 1965 ACT SHALL APPLY TO EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED BY AN ESTABLISHMENT ENGAGED IN ANY INDUST RY CARRIED ON BY OR UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF ANY DEPARTMENT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR STATE GOVERNMENT OR A LOCAL AUTHORITY. IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT THE COURT WAS REQUIRED TO CONSIDER IN THE CASE OF R.C. JAIN (SUPRA) AS TO WHETHER DDA IS A 'LOCAL AUTHO RITY'. THERE WAS NO DEFINITION OF 'LOCAL AUTHORITY' IN THE SAID 1965 ACT. THEREFORE, THIS COURT HAD TO GO BACK TO S. 3(31) OF THE 1897 ACT. AS QUOTED HEREINABOVE, S. 3(31) OF THE 1897 ACT DEFINES 'LOCAL AUTHORITY' TO MEAN A MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, DISTRICT BO ARD, BODY OF PORT COMMISSIONERS OR OTHER AUTHORITY. IN THE CASE OF R.C. JAIN (SUPRA) THIS COURT WAS AWARE THAT DDA IS NEITHER A DISTRICT BOARD NOR A BODY OF PORT COMMISSIONERS. THEREFORE, THE ONLY QUESTION THE COURT HAD TO ADDRESS TO WAS : WHETHER DDA WOUL D FALL WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE WORDS 'OTHER AUTHORITY' IN S. 3(31) OF THE 1897 ACT. THEREFORE, WE HAVE TO READ PARA 2 OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF R.C. JAIN (SUPRA) IN THE CONTEXT OF S. 3(31) OF THE 1897 ACT AS THE WORD 'LOCAL AUTHORITY' WAS NOT DEFI NED IN THE PAYMENT OF BONUS ACT, 1965. THE COURT, THEREFORE, IN THE CASE OF R.C. JAIN (SUPRA) HAD TO FALL BACK UPON S. 3(31) OF THE 1897 ACT AND IN DOING SO THIS COURT 13 ITA NO S. 2356 TO 2359/PN/2012, DISTRICT INTEGRATED FACILITATION CENTRE (SETU), SOLAPUR IN THE CASE OF R.C. JAIN (SUPRA) APPLIED THE FUNCTIONAL AND INCORPORATION TESTS. 29. ONE MORE ASPECT NEEDS TO BE MENTIONED. IN THE CASE OF R.C. JAIN (SUPRA) THE TEST OF 'LIKE NATURE' WAS ADOPTED AS THE WORDS 'OTHER AUTHORITY' CAME AFTER THE WORDS 'MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, DISTRICT BOARD OR BODY OF PORT COMMISSIONERS'. THEREFORE, THE WORDS 'OTHER AUTHORITY' IN S. 3(31) TOOK COLOUR FROM THE EARLIER WORDS, NAMELY, 'MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, DISTRICT BOARD OR BODY OF PORT COMMISSIONERS'. THIS IS HOW THE FUNCTIONAL TEST IS EVOLVED IN THE CASE OF R.C. JAIN (SUPRA). HOWEVER, AS STATED, EARLIER PARLIAMENT IN I TS LEGISLATIVE WISDOM HAS OMITTED THE WORDS 'OTHER AUTHORITY' FROM THE SAID EXPLANATION TO S. 10(20) OF THE 1961 ACT. THE SAID EXPLANATION TO S. 10(20) PROVIDES A DEFINITION TO THE WORD 'LOCAL AUTHORITY'. IT IS AN EXHAUSTIVE DEFINITION. IT IS NOT AN INCLUS IVE DEFINITION. THE WORDS 'OTHER AUTHORITY' DO NOT FIND PLACE IN THE SAID EXPLANATION. EVEN, ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT(S), AMC(S) IS NEITHER A MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE NOR A DISTRICT BOARD NOR A MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE NOR A PANCHAYAT. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW FUNCT IONAL TEST AND THE TEST OF INCORPORATION AS LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF R.C. JAIN (SUPRA) IS NO MORE APPLICABLE TO THE EXPLANATION TO S. 10(20) OF THE 1961 ACT. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF R.C. JAIN (SUPRA) FOLLOWED BY JUD GMENTS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS ON THE STATUS AND CHARACTER OF AMC(S) IS NO MORE APPLICABLE TO THE PROVISIONS OF S. 10(20) AFTER THE INSERTION OF THE EXPLANATION/DEFINITION CLAUSE TO THAT SUB - SECTION VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2002. 30. THE QUESTION STILL REMAINS AS TO WHY PARLIAMENT HAS USED THE WORDS 'MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE' AND 'DISTRICT BOARD' IN ITEM (III) OF THE SAID EXPLANATION. IN OUR VIEW, PARLIAMENT HAS DEFINED 'LEGAL AUTHORITY' TO MEAN A PANCHAYAT AS REFERRED TO IN CL. (D) OF ART. 243 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IN DIA, MUNICIPALITY AS REFERRED TO IN CL. (E) OF ART. 243P OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THE ART. 243 AFTER THE WORDS 'MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE' AND 'DISTRICT BOARD'. IN OUR VIEW, THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND DISTRICT BOARD IN THE SAID EXPLANATION ARE USED OUT OF ABUNDANT CAUTION. IN 1897 WHEN GENERAL CLAUSES ACT WAS ENACTED THERE EXISTED IN INDIA MUNICIPAL COMMITTEES AND DISTRICT BOARDS. THEY CONTINUED EVEN THEREAFTER. IN SOME REMOTE PLACE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE EXISTS A 14 ITA NO S. 2356 TO 2359/PN/2012, DISTRICT INTEGRATED FACILITATION CENTRE (SETU), SOLAPUR MUNICI PAL COMMITTEE OR A DISTRICT BOARD. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, APART FROM A PANCHAYAT AND MUNICIPALITY, PARLIAMENT IN ITS WISDOM DECIDED TO GIVE EXEMPTION TO MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND DISTRICT BOARD. EARLIER THERE WERE DISTRICT BOARD ACTS IN VARIOUS STATES. MOST OF THE STATES HAD REPEALED THOSE ACTS. HOWEVER, IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT IN SOME REMOTE PLACE DISTRICT BOARD MAY STILL EXISTS. THEREFORE, PARLIAMENT DECIDED TO GIVE EXEMPTION TO SUCH MUNICIPAL COMMITTEES AND DISTRICT BOARDS. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, ADVIS EDLY PARLIAMENT HAS RETAINED EXEMPTION FOR MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND DISTRICT BOARD APART FROM PANCHAYAT AND MUNICIPALITY. OUR VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN PART IX OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ARTICLE 243N PROVIDES FOR CONTINUANCE OF EXISTING LAWS AND PANCHAYATS. IT STATES, INTER ALIA, THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING IN PART IX, ANY LAW RELATING TO PANCHAYATS IN A STATE IMMEDIATELY BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION (SEVENTY - THIRD AMENDMENT) ACT, 1992, WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART IX, SHALL CONTINUE TO BE IN FORCE UNTIL REPEALED BY A COMPETENT LEGISLATURE. SIMILARLY, UNDER PART IXA THERE IS ART. 243ZF WHICH REFERS TO THE 'MUNICIPALITIES'. THIS ARTICLE, INTER ALIA, STATES THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING IN PART IXA, ANY PROVISION OF ANY LAW RELATING TO MUNICIPALITIES IN FORCE IN A STATE IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION (SEVENTY - FOURTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1992, WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART IXA, SHALL CONTINUE TO BE IN FORCE UNTI L AMENDED OR REPEALED BY A COMPETENT LEGISLATURE. IN OUR VIEW, ART. 243N AND ART. 243ZF INDICATES THAT THERE COULD BE ENACTMENTS WHICH STILL RETAIN THE ENTITIES LIKE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEES AND DISTRICT BOARDS AND IF THEY EXIST, PARLIAMENT INTENDS TO GIVE EXE MPTION TO THEIR INCOME UNDER S. 10(20) OF THE 1961 ACT. 31. BEFORE CONCLUDING WE QUOTE HEREINBELOW AN IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE OF LAW ENUNCIATED BY THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF R.C. JAIN (SUPRA) WHICH READS AS UNDER : '...IT IS NOT A SOUND RULE OF INTERPRETATION T O SEEK THE MEANING OF WORDS USED IN AN ACT, IN THE DEFINITION CLAUSE OF OTHER STATUTES'. 32. SINCE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AMC(S) IS NEITHER A MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE NOR A DISTRICT BOARD UNDER THE SAID EXPLANATION TO S. 10(20) OF THE 1961 ACT, WE REFRAIN FROM GOING INTO THE QUESTION : WHETHER THE AMC(S) IS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO THE CONTROL OF THE LOCAL FUND, 15 ITA NO S. 2356 TO 2359/PN/2012, DISTRICT INTEGRATED FACILITATION CENTRE (SETU), SOLAPUR NAMELY, MARKET FUND, UNDER THE SAID 1998 ACT. THERE IS ONE MORE REASON WHY WE DO NOT WISH TO EXPRESS ANY OPINION ON THE SAID QUESTION. VIDE FINANCE ACT, 200 8, INCOME OF AMC(S) IS EXEMPT. SUB - S. 26AAB OF S. 10 COMES INTO FORCE W.E.F. 1ST APRIL, 2009. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT WISH TO EXPRESS ANY OPINION ON THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER AMC(S) IS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO THE CONTROL OF THE LOCAL FUND. 33. WE HOLD THAT AMC(S ) IS, THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER S. 10(20) OF THE 1961 ACT AFTER INSERTION OF THE SAID EXPLANATION VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2002 W.E.F. 1ST APRIL, 2003. 16. IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF APM C (SUPRA) ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE. EVEN IF THE LD. COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY ARGUES THAT THE FUNCTIONAL TEST IS TO BE APPLIED AS IN THE CASE OF R.C. JAIN & ORS. (SUPRA) BUT AS EXPLAINED BY THEIR L ORDSHIPS IN THE CASE OF APMC (SUPRA) THE EX PRESSION LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS BEEN DEFINED BY THE LEGISLATURE BY WAY OF EXPLANATION TO SEC. 10(20) OF THE I.T. ACT , HENCE, THERE IS NO NEED TO TAKE SUPPORT OF EXTERNAL AID. 17. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SOM PRAKASH REKHI VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 1981 AIR 212. IN OUR OPINION THE SAID DECISION HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE ISSUE BEFORE US. AS THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE SAID CASE WAS WHETHER BURMAH SHELL OIL STORAGE LTD. IS THE STATE WITHIN THE MEANING O F ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. EVEN IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE THE FUNCTIONS AND THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT AT PAR WITH ANY OF THE AUTHORITY MENTIONED IN THE EXPLANATION TO SEC. 10(20) OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE (SETU) IS CONSTI TUTED UNDER THE G.R. OF THE GOVT. AND NOT UNDER ANY SPECIFIC STATUTE . ON THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION ALSO IF THE LEGISLATURE HAS PROVIDED A DEFINITION O F SPECIFIC TERM OR EXPRESSION IN THE STATUTE ITSELF THEN THERE IS NO NECESSITY TO TAKE THE HELP OF THE G ENERAL CLAUSES A CT AS HELD IN THE CASE OF APMC (SUPRA) . WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A LOCAL AUTHORITY AS DEFINING IN SEC. 10(20) OF THE 16 ITA NO S. 2356 TO 2359/PN/2012, DISTRICT INTEGRATED FACILITATION CENTRE (SETU), SOLAPUR ACT AND HENCE, CANNOT CLAIM THE EXEMPTION OF ITS INCOME UNDER THE SAID PROVIS ION. WE, ACCORDIN GLY, DISMISS THE GROUND IN ALL THE APPEALS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 18. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 - 07 - 20 1 4 SD/ - SD/ - ( G.S. PANNU ) ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER RK /PS PUNE , DATED : 21 ST JULY, 2014 COPY TO 1 ASSESSEE 2 DEPARTMENT 3 4 5 THE CIT(A) - III, PUNE THE CIT(A) - IV, PUNE THE DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6 GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY O RDER PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE