M/s. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, Dehradun V. CIT, Dehradun

ITA 271/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3521 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MONGA
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHESH B CHIBBER
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 12A; 12AA; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: I NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO: 271/DEL/2011 A.Y. : - M/S MUSSORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT VS. CIT, DEHRADUN AUTHORITY SUBHASH ROAD 12, PRITHAM ROAD DEHRADUN DEHRADUN (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. MAHESH B.CHIBBER, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SH. A.K.MONGA, SR.D.R. O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2010 OF CIT, DEHRADUN WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATI ON FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 . 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FA CT THAT THE APPELLANT AUTHORITY HAS BEEN CREATED WITH THE OBJEC T OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY WHICH IS A CHARITABLE OBJECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE AC TIVITIES OF ADVANCEMENT OF THE OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY BY THE APPELLANT AUTHORITY ARE UNDERTAKEN/CARRIED ON IN A TOTALLY COMMERCIAL NATURE AND HENCE THE AUTHORITY IS NOT EN TITLED TO REGISTRATION U/S 12A(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 . ITA 271/DEL/2011 PAGE 2 OF 10 MUSSORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DEHRADUN 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE MADE AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A(A) ALONG WITH CERTAIN ENCLOSURES. CONSIDERING THE SAME THE CIT(A) REQUIRED THE ASSESS EE TO FURNISH DEED/INSTRUMENTS EVIDENCING CREATION OF THE ORGANIZ ATION. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN WHETHER THE ORGANIZATION IS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE AND WHETHER IT WAS CONSTITUTED TO PROVIDE A NY CHARITY TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE AND WHETHER IT WAS FREE OF COST. A SSESSEE WAS FURTHER REQUIRED TO STATE AS TO HOW THE DEVELOPMENT AND OT HER ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE MUSSORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AU THORITY (MDDA) COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE OF CHARITABLE NATURE. T HE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE FUNDS OF MDDA WER E GENERATED AND THE MODUS OPERANDI OF ACQUIRING THE LAND AND HOW THE S AME WAS SOLD OUT. THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED TO ADDRESS A ND EXPLAIN AS TO AT WHAT RATE THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED AND AT WHAT RATE IT WAS SOLD OUT DURING THE A.YS 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10. FURTHER MORE T HE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF INTEREST OT HER THAN FDRS FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.3.2007, 31.3.2008, 31.3.2009. DETAI LS AND NATURE OF ANY PENALTY RECOVERED DURING THE YEAR ENDING 31.3.2007 WERE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO PUT TO NOTICE OF THE FACT THAT IN THE COPIES OF AUDITED REPORTS FURNISHED IN FORM NO.3 CB FOR THE THREE F.YS AS PER THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT ENCLOSED IN FORM NO.10A AND RULE 6G(I)(B) WHICH GOVERNS THE SAME APPLIES TO PERSONS CARRYING ON BUSINESS OR PROFESSION WHO ARE REQUIRED TO GET THEIR ACCOUNTS AUDITED AS PER S. 44 AB OF THE I.T.ACT. THUS AS PER ASSESSEES OWN VERS ION THE ASSESSEE HAS DESCRIBED ITSELF AS A PERSON CARRYING ON BUSINESS O R PROFESSION. IN THIS BACKGROUND THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW IT WAS ESTABLISHED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. 3. THE A.O. FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ON EXAMINATION O F ITS ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 31.3.2009 FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.3.09 IT REVEALED THAT ASSESSEE HAD COLLECTED ADVANCE OF RS. 63,74,64,659/ - FROM CUSTOMERS AND ADVANCES OF RS. 60 LAKHS FROM DOORDARSHAN AGAIN ST THE SALE OF LAND. ITA 271/DEL/2011 PAGE 3 OF 10 MUSSORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DEHRADUN FURTHER MORE AS SUCH UNDER THE HEAD LAND PURCHASE AND ACQUISITION ON 31.3.2009 IT WAS OBSERVED THAT RS. 12,29,05,629/- A S AGAINST RS. 12,10,31,779/- AS ON 31.3.2008 AND RS. 1,10,81,06,9 09/- AS ON 31.3.2007. APART FROM THIS ASSETS UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL PROJECT UNDER THE H/P SCHEME WAS SHOWN TO BE RS.28,28,94,604/- A S ON 31.3.2009 WHEREAS IT WAS RS. 43,40,91,248.57 AS ON 31.3.2008 AND RS. 43,16,00,281.73 AS ON 31.3.2007. IN THE ABOVE BACK GROUND THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ACTIVITIES MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE OF COMMERCIAL NATURE AND THE OBJECTS AND PUR POSE TO BE NON CHARITABLE AND THUS EXPLAIN AS TO WHY REGISTRATION U/S 12A MAY NOT BE REJECTED IN VIEW OF THE FIRST PROVISO TO S.2(15) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. 4. IN RESPONSE THERETO THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DT. 28.10.2008 CONTAINED AT PAGES 2 TO 4 OF THE IMPUGNE D ORDER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR A READY REFERENCE. SUB: YOUR LETTER NO. CITDDN/TECH/12A/2010-11/5976 DT. 28.10.2010 WITH REFERENCE TO ABOVE PLEASE FIND ENCLOSED FOLLO WING INFORMATION ALONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 1) COPY OF U.P.GOVT. G.O. THRU WHICH MDDA (MUSSORI E DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) WAS FORMED (ANNEXUR E I). THE AUTHORITY WAS SET UP AS PER U.P.GOVT. G.O. DT. 7.11.1984 UNDER UTTAR PRADESH URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT NO.11 OF 1973 (BASED ON DELHI DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1957 ) WITH AN OBJECTIVE OF DEVELOPMENT OF MUSSORIE & DEHRADUN AND ALL DEVELOPMENTAL SCHEMES AS WELL AS BEAUTIFICATION OF THE DISTRICT COMES UNDER ITS PURVIEW. THUS IT IS AN OR GANISJATION SET UP BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT WITH THE SPECIFIC OB JECTIVE OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA COMING UNDER THE DISTRICT A ND LAUNCHING SCHEMES FOR THE WELFARE OF PEOPLE OF DIST RICT AND NOT EARNING PROFIT. IF ANY SURPLUS ARISES IN ANY OF TH E SCHEMES IT IS ALSO USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT AND NO PART OF IT IS DISTRIBUTED TO MEMBERS OR EMPLOYEES. 2) THE AUTHORITY WAS SET UP WITH AN OBJECTIVE OF DEVELOPMENT OF AREA WHICH COMES UNDER ITS PURVIEW B Y PROVIDING HOUSING, ROADS, ELECTRIC INSTALLATION, DE VELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF PARKS (BOOST TO ENVIRONMENT), P LANTATION OF TREES (AGAIN PERTAINING TO ENVIRONMENT), PROVIDI NG SEWERAGE SYSTEM (CLEAN AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT) ARE OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY (ANNEXURE II). THE OBJECTS/ACTS ARE ALL IN THE ITA 271/DEL/2011 PAGE 4 OF 10 MUSSORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DEHRADUN NATURE OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE AS DEFINED IN SUB SECT ION 15 OF SECTION 2 OF THE ACT AND NOT LINKED WITH ANY ACTIV ITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. 3) THE FUNDS OF THE AUTHORITY ARE GENERATED BY WAY OF DEVELOPMENT FEES, MAP FEES, STAMP DUTY, STACKING FE ES ETC. FOR WHICH THE STATE GOVT. HAS AUTHORIZED IT BY SPECIAL ACT. 4) MODUS OPERANDI OF ACQUIRING LAND IS AS UNDER. THE AUTHORITY TAKES APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD FOR ACQUIRI NG ANY PIECE OF LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT. BUT THE ACQUISITION OF LAND IS DONE BY THE STATE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER ONLY AND THE AUTHORITY DEPOSITS THE AMOUNT FOR THE LAND AS DECID ED BY THE SLO. 5) THE DETAILS OF INTEREST OTHER THAN FDRS FOR 31.3 .2007, 31.3.2008 AND 31.3.2009 ARE ENCLOSED FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE. THESE INTERESTS ARE ON THE SCHEMES LAUN CHED BY THE AUTHORITY (ANNEXURE III). 6) PENALTY RECOVERED DURING THE YEAR 31.3.2007 IS R S. 81757/- AND IT PERTAINS TO PENALTY CHARGES FOR DELA Y IN WORK FROM CONTRACTORS. 7) THE AUTHORITY HAS BEEN FILING INCOME TAX RETURN SINCE A.Y. 2003-04. (ANNEXURE IV) PRIOR TO IT AUTHORIT Y WAS EXEMPT U/S 10(20A) BEING A LOCAL AUTHORITY BUT DUE TO AMEN DMENT IN THE SECTION AUTHORITY WAS REQUIRED TO FILE RETURN F ROM 2003-04. 8) THE MONEY COLLECTED FROM CUSTOMERS IS SHOWN AS ADVANCE TILL THE FULL AMOUNT IS NOT RECOVERED FROM CUSTOMERS AND THE LAND IS NOT REGISTERED IN HIS NAME. THE LA ND IS SOLD AT CIRCLE RATE ONLY AND IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE B OARD HAS POWER TO FIX THE RATE AS PER DIRECTIVES OF THE STAT E GOVERNMENT (ANNEXURE V). REGARDING ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM DOOR DARSHAN RS. 60 LACS. AUTHORITY WAS ASKED BY THE STATE GOVT . TO ACQUIRE AND MAKE AVAILABLE LAND TO DOORDARSHAN FOR THEIR PR OJECT AND THE COST OF LAND WAS FIXED AT THE CIRCLE RATE FIXED BY THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DEHRADUN AND NO ELEMENT OF PROFIT WAS I NCLUDED BUT AS THE DOORDARSHAN HAD NOT DEPOSITED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION NOR THE LAND HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THEM THE AMOUNT OF RS. 60 LACS WAS SHOWN AS ADVANCE ONLY. ( COPY OF LETTER ENCLOSED FOR YOUR PERUSAL ANNEXURE VI). AS THE AUTHORITY IS LOCAL AUTHORITY AND NO SEPARATE ITR FORM IS SPEC IFIED FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY AND MOREOVER THE AUTHORITY DID NOT HAD EXEMPTION U/S 12AA THEREFORE IN ORDER TO AVOID PENA LTY AND FURTHER LITIGATION THE BOOKS WERE GOT AUDITED AS PE R SECTION 44AB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 9) FURTHER, I BRING TO YOUR KIND NOTICE THE OBJECT S AND ACTIVITIES OF HARIDWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HARID WAR AND SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DEHRADUN ARE SI MILAR WHERE AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION U/S12AA OF THE INCOME ITA 271/DEL/2011 PAGE 5 OF 10 MUSSORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DEHRADUN TAX ACT, 1961 WAS FILED AND YOUR GOODSELF HAS GRANT ED EXEMPTION U/S 12AA. TO CONCLUDE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE MDDA IS ENGA GED IN ACTIVITIES ENSHRINED IN DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE GIVEN IN S.15(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND IS ENTITLED TO A CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND ACC ORDINGLY, IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THE SAME BE GRA NTED. 5. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS CIT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AN INSTITUTION/ORGANIZATION ESTABLISHED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE INSTITUTION/ORGANIZA TION HAS COME INTO EXISTENCE WITH THE OBJECT OF CHARITY OR FOR A CHARI TABLE PURPOSE. THE CIT WAS FURTHER OF THE VIEW THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE AS SESSEE ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN SET UP BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO ASSIST I T IN CARRYING ON SPECIFIC WORK DOES NOT IN ITSELF MEAN THAT THE ASSE SSEE ORGANIZATION IS ESTABLISHED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. THE LD.AUTHOR ITY WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WORK PER SE IS NOT SYNONYMOU S WITH CHARITY UNLESS ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF CHARITY ARE PRESENT. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON ORDER DT. 1.6.2006 IN ITA 764/CHD/2003 REPORT ED IN (2006) 103 TTJ CHANDIGARH 988 IN THE ORDER OF THE CHANDIGARH B ENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND D EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. CIT WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAD CONSIDE RED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE ON IDENTICAL FACTS. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT PUPDA (P UNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) WHO WAS ACQUIRING LANDS ON NORMAL RATES AND SELLING THE SAME AFTER DEVELOPMENT TO THE GENER AL PUBLIC AT A HIGHER RATE. PUPDA WAS HELD TO BE NOT ALLOTTING HOUSES T O POOR MASSES AT FREE OF COST. CREATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FACILITIES L IKE PARKS, SCHOOL, COMMUNITY CENTRES PROVIDED TO PLOT HOLDERS WERE CON SIDERED TO BE TOOLS TO ATTRACT THE INVESTORS AND HIDDEN COST OF THESE F ACILITIES WERE CONSIDERED TO BE HIDDEN IN THE COST CHARGED FROM THE PUBLIC. IT WAS HELD THAT THE OBJECTS OF PUPDA ARE NOT CHARITABLE IN NATURE BUT M ORE OF COMMERCIALIZED NATURE INVOLVING PROFIT MOTIVE. THE CIT REFERRING TO THE ITA 271/DEL/2011 PAGE 6 OF 10 MUSSORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DEHRADUN SAID ORDER OF THE CHANDIGARH B BENCH OBSERVED TH AT THE BENCH OBSERVED THAT SIMILAR ACTIVITIES ARE PERFORMED BY BIG COLONIZERS/DEVELOPERS WHICH ARE EARNING A HUGE PROF IT AND IF THIS REGISTRATION IS GRANTED THEN ANYBODY WILL CLAIM THE EXEMPTION FROM TAX. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE SAID ORDER WHEREIN THE I TAT OBSERVED THAT IF ANY PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS ARE CREATED/DEVELOPED THE A SSESSEE IS CHARGING COST OF IT FROM THE PUBLIC AT LARGE AND MONEY IS CO MING FROM THE COFFER OF THE GOVERNMENT THE OBJECTS/ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESS E ARE MORE OF COMMERCIALIZED NATURE AND NO CHARITY IS INVOLVED IN IT. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN FACT THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL WENT ON TO HOLD THAT IF THESE FACILITIES VIZ., PARKS, SCHOOLS , COMMUNITY CENTRES ETC. ARE NOT PROVIDED THEN NO BODY WOULD PURCHASE A PL OT. AS SUCH THIS WAS CONSIDERED TO BE A MEANS OF ATTRACTING THE PEOPLE SO THAT MAXIMUM PEOPLE APPLY FOR THE SAME AND THE HIDDEN COSTS ARE ALREADY ADDED SO NO ELEMENT OF CHARITY IS INVOLVED. 5.1 THE CIT FURTHER DREW SUPPORT FROM THE FACT THAT THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RELIED UPON ACIT VS. THANTHI TRUST (2001) 165 CTR (SC) 681 AND BIHAR STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT COR PORATION VS. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 757 (PAT.) 5.2. HE WAS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT SIMILAR VIEWS AND CONCLUSIONS HAVE BEEN ARRIVED AT BY THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF ITAT IN IT S ORDER DT. 12.6.2009 ITA 562/ASR/2008 IN THE CASE OF JALANDHAR DEVELOPM ENT AUTHORITY VS. CIT (2009) 124 TTJ (ASR) 598. 5.3. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS CONSIDERED THAT THE FACTS O F THE CASE OF MDDA AND PUPDA ALONG WITH JDA (JALANDHAR DEVELOPMENT AUT HORITY) WERE FOUND TO BE HAVING STRIKING RESEMBLANCES AND IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ORGANIZATION HAD NOT BEEN BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE FO R CHARITABLE PURPOSES AND THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ORGANIZATION DID NOT RE NDER ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. ON A PERUSAL OF ASSESSEES ACCOUNT IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ACTIVITIES WERE COMMERCIAL AS INTEREST FROM ITS CUS TOMERS ON BELATED PAYMENTS HAD BEEN CHARGED. MOREOVER ASSESSEE ALSO RECOVERED PENALTY ITA 271/DEL/2011 PAGE 7 OF 10 MUSSORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DEHRADUN FROM CONTRACTORS FOR DELAY IN WORK. THESE FACTS AC CORDING TO CIT PROVE THAT ASSESSEE WAS WORKING COMMERCIALLY IN ABSOLUTE TERMS. THE ASSERTION OF ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS SELLING LANDS AT CIRCLE RATES, WAS CONSIDERED TO BE NOT INVOLVING ANY CHARITY IN ITS ELF. THE ASSESSEEE GENERATE ITS FUNDS BY WAY OF DEVELOPMENT FEE, MAP F EE, STAMP DUTY, STACKING FEE ETC. WHICH WAS CHARGED FROM THE PUBLI C. THUS, FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE INSTITUTION WERE CONSIDERED TO BE PUBLIC MONEY AND NO CHARITY WAS INVOLVED. HE WAS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT EVEN I F SOME ACTIVITIES OR INSTITUTION OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE LIKE SCHOOLS, COMM UNITY CENTRES ARE CREATED/DEVELOPED, THE ASSESSEE IS CHARGING THE COS T OF IT FROM THE PUBLIC AT LARGE AND THE MONEY IS BEING CHARGED FROM THE PU BLIC. HENCE THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF CHARITY INA SSESSEES ACTIVITIES AS ALL THE ACTIVITIES ARE MORE OF COMMERCIALIZED IN NATURE. 5.4. HE WAS FURTHER OF THE VIEW THAT EVEN IF IT IS GRANTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO PROFIT MOTIVE, IT STILL COULD NOT B E DENIED THAT ITS ACTIVITIES OF ADVANCEMENT OF THE OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY WERE UNDERTAKEN IN A COMMERCIAL NATURE, WHICH WAS CLEA RLY HIT BY THE 1 ST PROVISO TO S.2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. AC CORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE ESTABLISHED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. 5.5. IN REGARD TO THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT REGISTRATION HAD BEEN GRANTED TO HARIDWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HAR IDWAR IT WAS HELD THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA DO NOT APPLY TO THE INCOME TAX ACT PROVISIONS. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. LD.A.R. AGITATED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER SUFFER S ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE CIT HAS BEEN PERSUADED BY THE FINDING S OF ORDERS IN THE CASE OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AND AS FAR AS THE ASSES SEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS CONCERNED THERE IS NO DISCUSSION OR MENT ION ABOUT THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE NOR IS THERE A DISCUSSION ON ITS G ENUINENESS. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED PU RELY RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF PUPDA ITA 271/DEL/2011 PAGE 8 OF 10 MUSSORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DEHRADUN (SUPRA) AND AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN JALAN DHAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (SUPRA). ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE OR DER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF MUZZAFARNAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTH ORITY (MDA) WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DT. 1.2.2010 I N ITA 4042/DEL/2009 RESTORED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT TO DECID E DENOVO TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION A PLETHORA OF DECISIONS OF ITAT WHICH ARE REFERRED TO AT PAGE NO.5 OF THE SAID ORDER. LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT HE WOULD BE RELYING ON THOSE DECISIONS. 8. LD.D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE CIT HAS DISCUSSED VARIOUSLY AND AT LENGTH THE SPECIFIC FACTS OF ASSES EES CASE ALONG WITH ITS ACTIVITIES WHICH HAVE BEEN ANALYSED IN DETAIL. CO MPARISON WITH THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PUP DA AND JDA HAS BEEN MADE AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DESERVES TO BE UPH ELD. HOWEVER, CONFRONTED WITH THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH O F THE DELHI BENCH OF ITAT IN CASE OF MDA AND THE VARIOUS ORDERS RELIED UPON THEREIN IT WAS HIS STAND THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FI LE OF THE CIT IN LINE WITH THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH. HOWEVER SPECIFI C REFERENCE TO ORDERS OF CHANDIGARH AND AMRITSAR BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AT LENGTH BY THE CIT MAY ALSO BE MADE A S THEY MAY NOT BE OVERLOOKED AND THE SAME MAY ALSO BE TAKEN INTO CONS IDERATION BY THE CIT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER. 9. THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH WERE REQUIRED TO AD DRESS THE FATE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PUPDA. HO WEVER, THE PARTIES WERE UNABLE TO THROW ANY LIGHT ON ITS FATE. 10. ACCORDINGLY HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IT IS APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE DE NOVO. THE ORDERS OF COORDINATE BENCHES REFERRED TO BY THE DEL HI BENCH IN ITS ORDER ITA 271/DEL/2011 PAGE 9 OF 10 MUSSORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DEHRADUN DT. 1.2.2010 SHALL BE CONSIDERED WHILE PASSING THE ORDER FOR READY REFERENCE THEY ARE MENTIONED HEREUNDER. 1. ALIGARH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ITA NO. 168 (AG.)/D EL/2007, ORDER DATED 30.5.2008. 2. U.P.AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD ITA NO. 1690 (LUCK)/ 2003 FOR A.Y. 2003-04 DT. 25.7.2005. 3. LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LUCKNOW BENCH. 4. KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LUCKNOW BENCH. 5. KHUJRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ITA NO. 1851(DEL) 20 09 ORDER DT. 14.7.2009. 6. SAHARANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ITA NO. 5008 (DE L) 2007 ORDER DT. 20.6.2008. 7. HAPUR PILKHUWA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ITA NO. 2735 /DEL/2006 ORDER DT. 15.5.2007. 8. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ITA NO. 2903/DEL/ 2006 ORDER DT. 31.1.2007. 9. AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. 10.UNNAO-SHUKLAGANJ DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ITA NO. 686, 690, 696, 703 AND 736 (LUCK)/2003 FOR A.Y. 2003-04 DT. 25.7.2005. 11. MUZZAFARNAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DECIDED BY ITAT, DELHI E BENCH ON 1.2.2010 THE LATEST ORDER ON THE ISSU E APART FROM THE ABOVE AS PER THE DEPARTMENTAL PRAYER THE ORDERS OF THE AMRITSAR BENCH AND THE CHANDIGARH BENCH RELIED UP ON BY THE CIT SHALL ALSO BE CONSIDERED WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE. NEEDL ESS TO SAY THAT THE SAID AUTHORITY SHALL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCOR DANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14TH JULY, 20 11. SD/- SD/- (B.C.MEENA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14TH JULY, 2011 *MANGA ITA 271/DEL/2011 PAGE 10 OF 10 MUSSORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DEHRADUN COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CI T(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR // C O P Y //