Bhubaneswar Development Authority, Bhubaneswar V. CIT, Bhubaneswar

ITA 329/CTK/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3827 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-05-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MOHAPATRA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Gift; Charitable institution; Question of law; Commercial expediency; Condonation of delay; Cancellation of registration
• Section: 12A; 12AA; 12; 11; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAV AN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.329/CTK/2013 BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AKASH SHOVA BUILDING, SACHIVALAYA MARG, BHUBANESWAR. VS. CIT, BHUBANESWAR. PAN/GIR NO. AAALB 0073 G (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.NAIK/R.K.KAR, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI A.K.MOHAPATRA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 22 /05/ 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 /05/ 2017 O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI , AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT, BHUBANESWAR, DATED 8.3.2013. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHUBANESWAR IN HIS ORDER DATED 8.3.2013 WHILE REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT, HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AT LENGTH AND OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (CALLED HEREINAFTER THE BDA) APPLIED FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT IN MAY'2008 WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT, BHUBANESWAR VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 28 .11.2008 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INSTITUTION ARE NOT CHARITABLE IN NATURE. IT WAS ALSO HELD THEREIN THAT WHEREAS THE STATED OBJECTS OF THE BDA WERE CLAIMED TO BE COMING UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE 'ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT FOR GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY' AS PER INCLUSIVE DEFINITION OF 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' GIVEN IN SEC. 2(15) OF THE ACT, AND WHEREAS THE SAME WERE FOUND INVOLVING ACTIVITIES IN NATURE OF COMMERCE AND BUSINESS OR 2 ITA NO.329/CTK/2013 BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE AND BUSI NESS, REGISTRATION WAS DENIED FOR ITS ACTIVITIES NOT BEING FOR 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' IN CONSEQUENCE TO THE AMENDMENT MADE TO THAT SECTION BY INSERTING PROVISOS VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2008 W.E.F. 01.04.2009. THE APPLICANT CHALLENGED T HE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE CIT BEFORE THE HON'BLE 1TAT, CUTTACK AND THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE MATTER FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE 'ODISHA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT, 1982'(CALLED HEREIN AFTER THE ODA ACT), AND MORE PART ICULARLY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE SEC.77 THEREOF AND ANALYZING THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE PROVISIONS IN THE SAID ACT. THE APPLICANT ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ALLOWED THEREIN TO FILE NECESSARY PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT WITH A DIRECTION TO CIT TO CONSIDER THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE WAS HEARD FROM TIME TO TIME REPRESENTED BY MR. G.N. N AYAK, LD. ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. VIDE THE PETITION OF THE BDA DT. 06.12.2012, REQUEST WAS MADE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY BY GRANTING REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT W.E.F. 01.04.2003. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS TO BE STATED THAT AS PER THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 12A(L)(A), THE PROVISIONS REGA RDING CONDONATION OF DELAY SHALL N'T APPLY IN RELATION TO ANY APPLICATION MADE ON OR AFTER 01.06.2007. WHEREAS IN THIS CASE THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO. 10A WAS FILED ONLY IN MAY'2008 I.E. AFTER 01.06.2007 AND FOR THAT MATTER THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF CONDONATION OF DELAY. ON THIS GROUND, THE PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO BEING REJECTED FOR THE SAME IS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. VIDE THE SAME PETITION DT. 06.12.2012, THE APPLICANT CITED THE OBJECTS AS ENVISA GED U/S 77 OF THE ODA ACT, 1982 AND ALSO A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF ITS ACTIVITIES SO FAR CONDUCTED. IT WAS RE - ITERATED THAT THE BDA IS CARRYING OUT ITS ACTIVITIES IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE MAIN OBJECTS FOR GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY WITH PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE STATE GOV ERNMENT AS PROVIDED IN VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ODA ACT, 1982 AND AS PER RULES FRAMED THEREUNDER. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED HOW THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED TO A LARGER EXTENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES PROVIDED FOR THIS PURP OSE IN THE ODA ACT. HOWEVER, NOTHING WAS STATED ABOUT THE HUGE COMMERCIAL RECEIPTS, CHARGES, FEES ETC. AS REFLECTED IN THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BEING DIRECTLY CAPITALIZED FOR YEARS TOGETHER, IRRESPECTIVE OF MANNER AND MODE OF TREATING THE SAME PROV IDED IN THE ODA ACT, SO AS TO JUSTIFY THAT ITS ACTIVITIES ARE DEVOID OF COMMERCIAL IMPLICATIONS. ASSUMING BUT NOT ADMITTING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING ITS ACCOUNTS AS REQUIRED UNDER ODA ACT, THE MUTE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ACT IVITIES OF THE CONCERN IS CHARITABLE U/S 2(15) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AS AMENDED W.E.F. 01.04.2009. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' IS DEFINED U/S 2(15) TO INCLUDE RELIEF TO THE POOR, EDUCATION , MEDICAL RELIEF, PRESERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT (IN CLUDING WATER SHEDS, FOREST AND WILDLIFE) AND PRESERVATION OF MONUMENTS OR PLACES OR OBJECT OF ARTISTIC OR HISTORIC INTEREST AND ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THE EXPRESSION 'ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UT ILITY' HAS BEEN AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 FROM THE A.Y. 2009 - 10. 'ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY' SHALL NOT BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE, IF IT INVOLVES THE CARRYING OUT OF ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSIN ESS, OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION. THIS RESTRICTION IS, HOWEVER, APPLICABLE ONLY IF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS FROM ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMER CE OR BUSINESS, OR ANY ACTIVITY OR RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS EXCEEDS RS.10 LAKHS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR (RS.25 LAKHS W.E.F. 01.04.2012). ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING RECEIPTS OF THE NATURE DESCRIBED AS ABOVE EX CEEDING RS.25/ - LAKHS IN ALL THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. 3 ITA NO.329/CTK/2013 BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 4. THE CBDT VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 11/2008 DT. 19.12.2008 HAD EXPLAINED THE AMENDMENT AS UNDER: 'THE NEWLY INSERTED PROVISO TO SECTION 2( 15 ) WILL APPLY ONLY TO ENTITIES WHOSE PURPOSE IS 'ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY' I.E. THE FOURTH LIMB OF THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE ' CONTAINED IN SECTION 2( 15 ). HENCE, SUCH ENTITIES WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OR UNDER SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT IF THE Y CARRY ON COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES. WHETHER SUCH AN ENTITY IS CARRYING ON AN ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS IS A QUESTION OF FACT, WHICH WILL BE DECIDED BASED ON THE NATURE, SCOPE, EXTENT AND FREQUENCY OF THE ACTIVITY.' THE PROVISO VER Y CLEARLY USES THE LANGUAGES 'ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS'. ANY ACTIVITY WILL BE CONSTRUED TO BE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS ONLY IF SAME IS CARRIED ON WITH THE INTENTION TO EARN PROFIT. SECTION 2(13) OF THE ACT DEFINES THE TERM 'BUSINESS' TO INCLUDE 'ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR MANUFACTURE OR ANY ADVENTURE OR A CONCERN IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR MANUFACTURE.' THE TERM 'BUSINESS' HAS COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE COURTS IN A LARGE NUMBER OF C ASES. IN SUBSTANCE THE VIEW OF THE COURTS IS THAT IT IS AN ACTIVITY CARRIED ON IN A SYSTEMATIC MANNER WITH A VIEW TO EARN PROFIT. ACCORDINGLY, IN ORDER TO HOLD WHETHER THE ACTIVITY IS IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, THERE SHOULD BE PROFIT MOT IVE. WHETHER SUCH AN ACTIVITY IS IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS IS A QUESTION OF FACT, WHICH HAS TO BE DECIDED BASED ON THE NATURE, SCOPE, EXTENT AND FREQUENCY OF THE ACTIVITY. THE MAIN OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE BDA HAVE ALWAYS BEEN TO DO INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENTS IN URBAN PLANNING AND ALSO DEVELOPING HOUSING PROJECTS IN THE MANNER OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, FOR EXAMPLE, REFLECT MOST OF ITS ACTIVITIES HAVING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS UNDER THREE CATEGORIES VIZ. I) C APITAL WORKS, ITS OWN ACTIVITIES IN THE FIELD OF HOUSING & INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS IN THE HOUSING SECTOR, II). DEPOSIT WORKS, THE CONTRACT WORKS AWARDED BY VARIOUS GOVT, OR OTHER GOVT, BODIES AND HI) MISCELLANEOUS WORKS AND OTHER SUPERVISORY WORKS ON BEHAL F OF BMC. ON THE OUTLAY O \ EXPENDITURE ON THE ABOVE PROJECTS, BDA IN PRACTICE CHARGES 15% ON ''CAPITAL WORKS' AND 10% ON 'DEPOSIT WORKS' AS ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES WHICH IN TURN INTER - ALIA. ARE BEING REFLECTED AS 'INCOME' IN THE L&E ACCOUNTS. SINCE THERE IS NO PRACTICE OF FURNISHING RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNTS WITH THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND ALL THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ARE BEING DIRECTLY CAPITALIZED FOR YEARS TOGETHER, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN THE HUGE ACCUMULATION OF FUND REMAINING IN VAR IOUS FORMS OF CAPITAL ASSETS. THESE FUNDS BEING GENERATED BY THE BDA THROUGH ITS VARIOUS ACTIVITIES ARE BEING PLOUGHED BACK, TO FULFILL THE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENT FOR ITS FUTURE PROJECTS AND SCHEMES AND THE ACTIVITIES ARE AIMED FOR EARNING PROFIT ONLY. 5. VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DT. 06.12.2012, IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE BDA TO HAVE DEVELOPED A NUMBER OF HOUSING COLONIES FOR ALL INCOME GROUPS VIZ. PLOTTED DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES AT BHARATPUR, KALINGA VIHAR ETC. DETAILS OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECTS WERE PROVIDED IN SUPPO RT OF THIS ARGUMENT. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED THEREIN TO HAVE GENERATED 'SELF EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES' BY CONSTRUCTING MARKET COMPLEXES INSIDE BHUBANESWAR CITY AS WELL AS IN ITS PERIPHERY. THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO CLAIMED THEREIN TO HAVE CONSTRUCTED CITY BUS STA NDS FOR PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, DEVELOPMENT & MAINTENANCE OF PARKS IN DIFFERENT PLACES, WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM AT ANANT VIHAR HOUSING SCHEME AT POKHARIPUT, SEWERAGE FACILITIES FOR KALINGA NAGAR HOUSING SCHEMES ETC. BUT, THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO CONVENIENCE HOW ALL THE ABOVE ACTIVITIES ARE FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE AND IT INVOLVES ALTRUISM IN CARRYING OUT THOSE ACTIVITIES. E VERY COLONIZER IN COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY ARE EXPECTED TO PROVIDE SEWERAGE LINE, WATER SUPPLY, ROADS ETC. AS A MAJOR OF VALUE ADDITION SO AS TO SALE 4 ITA NO.329/CTK/2013 BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AT A HIGHER PRICE OR GREATER PROFIT. ON EXAMINATION OF ITS ACTIVITIES VIS - A - VIS THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CHARGING FEES AND FINES FROM THE SALE OF FORMS, BU ILDING PLAN FEES, TRANSFER FEES, FINE & PENALTIES ETC. LEAVING APART IT'S CORE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES IN THE HOUSING SCHEMES AND LAND PLOTTING SCHEMES. SIMILARLY, NO ELEMENT OF CHARITY IS FOUND IN THE ACTIVITY OF CONSTRUCTING MARKET COMPLEXES BY WAY OF SELL ING IT AT PREVALENT MARKET PRICE OR BY WAY OF BIDDING PROCESS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD HOW BDA IS GENERATING 'SELF - EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES' AS CLAIMED BY IT. IN THIS REGARD, IT MAY BE STATED THAT SUBSTANTIAL INCOME IS BEING REFLECTE D IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FROM YEAR TO YEAR ON LETTING OUT THESE PROPERTIES. SUCH ARE NOT THE WAY OF BEING CHARITABLE. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE APPLICANT ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKING VARIOUS CONTRACTUAL WORKS AS REFLECTED IN THE FINAN CIAL STATEMENTS UNDER THE HEAD OF 'DEPOSIT WORKS' AND 10% ON THE OUTLAY OF EXPENDITURE IN A YEAR UNDER THIS HEAD IS BEING TAKEN TO I&E A/C AS 'INCOME' AND THE BALANCE RECEIPTS & PAYMENTS OF THAT HEAD ARE BEING DIRECTLY CAPITALIZED, MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO W ORK OUT TRUE PROFIT OF THE SAME. LIKEWISE, THE APPLICANT ASSESSEE HAS ALSO UNDERTAKEN MANY ACTIVITIES ON PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP(PPP) METHOD VIZ. NICCO PARK. BDA CITY CENTRE LTD., OCEAN PARK PVT. LTD. ETC. HENCE, IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AC TIVITIES OF THE BDA ARE TO BE HELD AS NOT FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE BUT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE ONLY LIKE ANY OTHER COLONIZER . APART FROM THE ABOVE, THE APPLICANT HASN'T SO FAR UNDERTAKEN ANY ACTIVITY FOR DOING CHARITY IN TRUE SENSE BY PROVIDING SHELTER OR MEETI NG THE HOUSING REQ UIREM ENTS OF POOR PEOPLE LIVING IN ITS PERIPHERY. CONTRARY TO IT, THE APPLICANT HAS ENGAGED IN CARRYING OUT ITS MAIN OBJECTS CONSTANTLY & SYSTEMATICALLY WITH PROFIT MOTIVE. HENCE, THE CHARGES, FEES OR PROFIT IN WHATEVER FORM BEING CHARGED OR RECEIVED BY BDA ARE ONLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE OUTCOME OF ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. IN THESE FACTS AND MORE SPECIFICALLY IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT MADE TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT FOR DEFINING 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' UNDER THE LIMB OF 'ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHE R OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY', THE APPLICATION FILED FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA IS SQUARELY LIABLE FOR REJECTION. IT IS TO BE ADDED FURTHER THAT NOT WITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO THE PROVISIONS AS CONTEMPLA TED UNDER THE ODA ACT. 1982 AND THE RULES FRAMED THEREUNDER, IT HAS TO MEET THE TENETS OF 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' AS DEFINED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IF AT ALL TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR GETTING EXEMPTION FROM TAX. 6. BESIDES THE ABOVE, IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT EVEN PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT, THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE BDA WERE COMMERCIAL IN NATURE AND DIDN'T INVOLVE ANY CHARITY. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RELATED TO CHANDIGARH DEVE LOPMENT AUTHORITY CONSTITUTED UNDER PUNJAB REGIONAL & TOWN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT'1995 (PUDA) ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF BDA TO REGULATE ALL PLANNED UNBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE STATE, APPLIED FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA. THE CIT REJE CTED THE APPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE COMMERCIAL AND NOT CHARITABLE IN NATURE. BEFORE THE HON'BLE IT AT, IT WAS STATED WHILE CONTENDING THE CASE ON BEHALF OF PUDA THAT IT HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED TO SATISFY THE NEED OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATION FOR VARIOUS SECTIONS OF PEOPLE OF PUNJAB AND ESPECIALLY FOR PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITIES, TOWN & VILLAGES. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT NO PROFIT MOTIVE COULD BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ABOVE ACTIVITIES AND TO CREATING AMENITIES OF PUBLIC GOODS. HOWEVER, THE HON'BLE IT AT. CHANDIGARH BENCH IN ITA NO. 764/CHD/2003 AS REPORTED IN 156 TAXMAN 37(CHD) HELD AS UNDER: (I) THE ACCOUNTS OF PUDA REVEALED THAT IT HAD TURNED INTO A HUGE PROFIT MAKING AGENCY FOR WHICH IT WAS TAKING MONEY FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC, (II) IT WAS CLEAR THAT PUDA DIDN'T ENGAGE ITSELF IN ANY CHARITY AND IF IT DEVELOPED ANY INSTITUTIONS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE SUCH AS SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY CENTRES, IT RECOUPED THEIR COSTS FROM THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, 5 ITA NO.329/CTK/2013 BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (III) THE OBJECTS / ACTIVITIES OF PUDA WERE COMMERCIAL IN NATURE AND THEY DID NOT INVOLVE ANY CHARITY. (IV) PROVIDING VARIOUS FACILITIES WAS A MEANS OF ATTRACTING PEOPLE SO THAT MAXIMUM PEOPLE MIGHT APPLY FOR ITS SCHEMES. THE HIDDEN COST WAS ALREADY ADDED, SO NO C HARITY WAS INVOLVED, (V) A NEW TREND HAD ALSO EMERGED THAT PUDA HAD STARTED AUCTIONING THE PLOTS AT THE MARKET RATE AND CHARGED INTEREST ON BELATED PAYMENTS. THIS DID NOT INVOLVE CHARITY. RATHER PUDA HAD CONVERTED ITSELF INTO A BIG BUSINESS ENTITY, (VI) SIMILAR D EVELOPMENT / INFRASTRUCTURE / FACILITIES ARE PROVIDED BY PRIVATE DEVELOPERS THESE DAYS, (VII) FURTHER, ALMOST IN EVERY ACTIVITY OF PUDA, THERE WAS A SCENT OF COMMERCIALIZATION / PROFIT MOTIVE. SIMILAR VIEW WAS ALSO HELD SUBSEQUENTLY BY THE HON'BLE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF JALANDHAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX IN IT APPEAL NO. 562(ARS) 2008 ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID DECISION. HERE, IT IS VERY PERTINENT TO QUOTE HEREUNDER THE OBJECTS OF THE BDA AS ENVISAGED IN SEC.7 OF ODA ACT'1982 WHICH ARE PARI MATERIA TO THE OBJECTS AS ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF THE PUNJAB REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1995(PUDA); AS UNDER: 'THE OBJECT OF THE AUTHORITY SHALL BE TO PROMOTE AND SECURE THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL OR ANY OF THE AREA COMPRISED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA CONCERNED ACCORDING TO PLAN AND FOR THAT PURPOSE THE AUTHORITY SHALL HAVE POWER TO ACQUIRE, HOLD, MANAGE AND DISPOSE OF LAND AND OTHER PROPERTY, TO CARRY OUT BUILDING, ENGINEERING, MINING AND OTHER OPERATIONS, TO EXECUTE WORKS IN CONNECTION WITH SUPPLY OF WATER AND ELECTRICITY, DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE AND OTHER SERVICES AND AMENITIES AND GENERALLY TO DO ANYTHING (INCLUDING CONTR OLLING DEVELOPMENT AND COORDINATING DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMMES OF RELATED AGENCIES) NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT FOR PURPOSES OF SUCH DEVELOPMENT AND FOR PURPOSES INCIDENTAL THERETO '(ODA ACT, 1982) 'THE OBJECTS OF THE AUTHORITY SHALL BE TO PROMOTE AND SECURE BETTER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF ANY AREA OF THE STATE AND FOR THAT PURPOSE THE AUTHORITY SHALL HAVE THE POWERS TO ACQUIRE BY WAY OF PURCHASE TRANSFER, EXCHANGE OR GIFT OR TO HOLD, MANAGE, PLAN DEVELOP AND MORTGAGE OF OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF LAND OR OTHER PROPERTY OR TO CARRY OUT ITSELF OR IN COLLABORATION WITH ANY OTHER AGENCY OR THROUGH ANY OTHER AGENCY ON ITS BEHALF, BUILDING, ENGINEERING, MINING AND OTHER OPERATIONS TO EXECUTE WORKS IN CONNECTI ON WITH SUPPLY OF WATER, DISPOSAL OF SEWERAGE, CONTROL OF POLLUTION AND OTHER SERVICES AND AMENITIES AND GENERALLY TO DO ANYTHING WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OR ON DIRECTION OF THE STALE GOVERNMENT, FOR CARRYING OUT THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT'. (PUNJAB REGIONAL AN D TOWN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1995) 7. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE A RECENT JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE IT AT, AMRITSAR BENCH[IT APPEAL NO. 366(ASRJ_OF 2012] DT. 18.12.2012 WHILE UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT, BATHINDA U/S 12AA(3) OF THE I.T. ACT FOR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION ALREADY GIVEN TO THE BATHINDA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN CONSEQUENCE TO THE AMENDMENT MADE IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE IT. ACT W.E.F. 01.04.2009. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE ARE SIMILAR WITH THAT OF THE BDA IN SO FAR AS THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES ARE CONCERNED. IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE IT AT IN THE CONCLUDING PART OF THE SAID JUDGEMENT AS UNDER: 'WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH US AS WELL AS DECISIONS CITED BY LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY HIM. AS PER IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE MAIN ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AT THAT TO PURCHASE LAND, TO ENHANCE AND DEVELOP THE LAND BY CUTTING IT INTO PLOTS ETC.. TO ADVERTISE FOR SALE OF 6 ITA NO.329/CTK/2013 BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PLOTS IN THE DEVELOPED LAND AND TO SELL OFF THE LAND THROUGH AUCTION, MEANING THEREBY THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS BUYING UNDEVELOPED LAND AT A LOW PRICE AND DEVELOPED IT AND PROVIDES THE SOME BASIC FACILITIES I.E. LEVELING AND CLEARI NG THE LAND, CUTTING IT INTO PLOTS, PROVIDING ACCESS ROADS, ELECTRICITY, PROVIDING WATER AND SEWERAGE FACILITIES ETC. THE ASSESSEE TRUST ENHANCED COST OF LAND FROM COST OF PURCHASE BY IT. THE ASSESSEE - TRUST IS ALSO CHARGING FEES AND FINES FROM SELLING OF F ORMS., LAND ENHANCEMENT FEES, BUILDING PLAN FEES, ROAD CUTTING FEES, TRANSFER FEES, FINE AND PENALTIES AND NON - CONSTRUCTION CHARGES AND THUS EARNING HUGE PROFITS, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT, AMENDED W.E.F. 01.04.2009.' IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE SAID ORDER AS UNDER: 'THEREFORE, THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST CLEARLY CONSTITUTE ACTIVITIES IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS BECAUSE NO PLOTS ARE RESERVED FOR ANY SOCIO - ECONOMICALLY LOWER SOCIETY, THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF DONATION OR SUPPORT TO ANY CAUSE , NON E OF THE LAND IS EARMARKED TO BE SOLD AT NO PROFIT, NO LOSS BASIS TO ANY PERSON WHATSOEVER, WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THE ELEMENT OF CHARITY IS CLEARLY ABSENT FROM THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE A CT AMENDED W.E.F 01.04.2009 AND THE LD. CIT, BATHINDA HAS RIGHTLY ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE - TRUST FOR CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION ALREADY GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE - TRUST WHICH THE LD. CIT, BATHINDA HAS THE POWER UNDER SECTION 12AA(3) OF THE AC T. 8. IN THESE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION MADE ABOVE, THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPLICANT IN FORM NO. 10A FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE L.T. ACT. 1961 IS HEREBY REJECTED. 3. LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ITA NO.366/ASR/2012 DATED 18,12,2012 WAS APPEALED BEFORE THE HONBLE P&H HIGH COURT AND THEIR LORDSHIPS WERE PLEASED TO RESTORE THE ORDER TO THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNAL BY OBSERVING AS U NDER: '5. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF 1922 ACT, THE MATTER IS REQUIRED TO BE REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDICATE WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT TRUST WERE COVERED WITHIN THE MEANING OF CHARITABLE IN N ATURE OR NOT EVEN AFTER THE INSERTION OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT W.E.F. 1.4.2009 I.E. IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 ONWARDS. NO SERIOUS OBJECTION WAS RAISED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE TO THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION. 6. AC CORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT INSERTED W.E.F APRIL 1, 2009 WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1922 ACT AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE PARTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY, ANYTHING OBSERVED HEREINBEFORE SHALL NOT BE TAKEN TO BE EXPRESSION OF OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THE CONTROVERSY. SINCERE EFF ORTS 7 ITA NO.329/CTK/2013 BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SHALL BE MADE TO DECIDE THE MATTER EXPEDITIOUSLY. AS A RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS STAND DISPOSED OF.' 4. IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 31.8.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.366/ASR/2012 UPHELD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND QUASH ED THE IMPUGNED ORDER CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE REGISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RESTORED. THEREFORE, THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE CIT ON THE ORDER OF THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF IMPROVEMENT TRUST B OTHINDA VS CIT, ORDER DATED 18.12.2012 NO LONGER HOLDS GOOD. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LUCKNOW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.156 OF 2008 HELD AS UNDER: BRIEF FACTS OF THE C ASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE AUTHORITY WAS SET UP UNDER THE U.P. INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1976. FOR THIS PURPOSE A GAZETTE NOTIFICATION WAS ISSUED ON 28TH JULY, 2005. THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12 A OF THE INCOME TAX BUT C IT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 22.9.2007 REFUSED THE REGISTRATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE AUTHORITY WAS BEING RUN ON COMMERCIAL LINE. AGAINST THE CIT'S ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT.BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTED THE CIT TO GRA NT REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ITAT MENTIONED IN ITS ORDER THAT IN THE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES REGISTRATION WAS ALREADY GRANTED TO THE M/S BHADOI INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS WHICH WERE ALSO SET UP UNDER THE U.P. INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPM ENT ACT, 1976 WITH THE SAME OBJECTS AND FUNCTIONS. SO THERE WAS NO REASON TO DENY THE REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, BEING AGGRIEVED, THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. WITH THIS BACK GROUND, WE HAVE HEARD SRI D.D.CHOPRA LEARNED COUNSE L FOR APPELLANT AND SRI AMIT SHUKLA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE AND PERUSED THE RECORD. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSE IS A STATUTORY AUTHORITY WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED UNDER THE U .P. INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1976. OTHER AUTHORITIES WHICH WERE ESTABLISHED UNDER THE SAME ACT WERE GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12 A OF THE ACT BUT THE SAME WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. ON THE BASIS OF PARITY , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS ALSO ENTITLED FOR THE REGISTRATION. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT YET STARTED 8 ITA NO.329/CTK/2013 BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FUNCTIONING BEING CHARITABLE INSTITUTION. REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED BEFORE STARTING BUSINESS AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF M/S BIHAR STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS.CIT,224ITR,757 S.C. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHO HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED CIT TO GRANT REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME IS HEREBY SUSTAINED. NO SUBST ANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW EMERGES. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 5. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE ORDER OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT WAS FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 265 CTR (ALL) 433, WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE TRUST IS CARRYING OUT ITS ACTIVITIES ON NON - COMMERCIAL LINES WITH NO MOTIVE TO E A RN PROFITS, FOR FULFILMENT OF ITS AIMS AND OBJECTIVES, WHICH ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND IN TH E PROCESS EARN SOME PROFITS, THE SAME WOULD NOT BE HIT BY PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15). 6. HENCE, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS IDENTICAL WITH THE CASE OF LUCKNOW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(SUP RA). THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE SAME, THE REGISTRATION SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD D.R. RELIED ON PARA 5 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT, WHICH IS QUOTED HEREINABOVE. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AS PER THE ODISHA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT, 1982 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE DA ACT) ARE AS UNDER: OBJECTS OF THE AUTHORITY - THE OBJE CTS OF THE AUTHORITY SHALL BE TO PROMOTE AND SECURE THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL OR ANY OF THE AREA COMPRISED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA CONCERNED ACCORDING TO PLAN 2 [BY ITSELF OR THROUGH A SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLE CONSTITUTED FOR THE PURPOSE OR THROUGH AN AGENCY OR A DEVELOPER ENTITY] AND FOR THA T PURPOSE T HE AUTHORITY SHALL HAVE POWER 9 ITA NO.329/CTK/2013 BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE, HOLD, MANAGE AND DISPOSE OF LAND AND OTHER PROPERTY, TO CARRY OUT BUILDING, ENGINEERING, MINING AND OTHER OPERATIONS, TO EXECUTE WORKS A CONNECTION WITH SUPPLY OF WATER AND ELECTRICITY, DISPOSAL OF SEWAG E, A OTHER SERVICES AND AMENITIES AND GENERALLY TO DO ANYTHING (INCLUDING CONTROLLING DEVELOPMENT AND COORDINATING DEVELOPMEN TAL PROGRAMMES OF RELATED AGENCY NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT FOR PURPOSES OF SUCH DEVELOPMENT AND FOR PURPOS E INCIDENTAL THERETO 9. TH E CIT REJECTED THE APPLICATIO N FOR REGISTRATION OF THE BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ON THE GROUND THAT ON EXAMINATION OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CHARGING FEES AND FINES FROM THE SALE OF FORMS, BUILDING PLAN FEES, TRANSFER FEES, FINE & PENALTIES, ETC LEAVING APART ITS CORE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES IN THE HOUSING SCHEMES AND LAND PLOTTING SCHEMES. NO ELEMENT OF CHARITY IS FOUND IN THE ACTIVITY OF CONSTRUCTING MARKET COMPLEXES BY WAY OF SELLING IT AT PREVALENT MARKET PRICE OR BY WAY OF BIDDING PROCESS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDERTAKING VARIOUS CONTRACTUAL WORKS AS REFLECTED IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT UNDER THE HEAD DEPOSIT WORKS AND 10% ON THE OUTLAY OF EXPENDITURE IN A YEAR UNDER THIS HEAD IS BEING TAKEN TO I&E ACCOUNT AS INCOME AND THE BALANCE RECEIPTS & PAYMENTS OF THAT HEAD ARE BEING DIRECTLY CAPITALISED. THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT UNDERTAKEN THE ACTIVITY OF CH ARITY IN TRUE SENSE BY PROVIDING SHELTER OR MEETING THE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS OF POOR PEOPLE LIVING IN ITS PERIPHERY. C ONTRARY TO THIS, THE ASSESSEE WA S ENGAGED IN CARRYING OUT ITS MAIN OBJECTS CONSTANTLY & SYSTEMATICALLY WITH PROFIT MOTIVE. HENCE, THE CH ARGES, FEES OR PROFIT IN WHATEVER FORM BEING CHARGED OR RECEIVED BY THE BDA ARE ONLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE OUTCOME OF ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY. IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT MADE TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT DEFINING CHARITABLE PURPOSE UNDER THE LIMB OF ADVANCEME NT OF ANY OTHER 10 ITA NO.329/CTK/2013 BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY THE APPLICATION FILED FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12AA IS TO BE REJECTED. 10. THE CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED IN HIS ORDER IN PARA 7 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASS ESSEE ARE SIMILAR THAT WERE BEFORE THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF IMPROVEMENT TRUST OF BATHINDA (SUPRA). THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 18.12.2012, HE DISMISSED THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN ORDER DATED 31.8.2015 IN ITA NO.336/ASR/2012 OF THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF IMPROVEMENT TRUST BATHINDA (SUPRA), WHEREIN, THE TRIBUNAL HAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S.12AA TO IMPR OVEMENT TRUST BATHINDA. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, SINCE THE CIT HAD REJECTED THE REGISTRATION FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF IMPROVEMENT TRUST BATHINDA (SUPRA), AND THE TRIBUNAL ON REMAND BY THE HONBLE P&H HIGH COURT HAS RESTORED THE REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT THE BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SHOULD ALSO BE GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LUCKNOW I NDUSTRIAL DE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY (SUPRA) HAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT ON SIMILAR FACTS. 12. LD D.R. HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT BUT COULD NOT SHOW ANY GOOD REASON TO NOT TO FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF I MPROVEMENT TRUST BATHINDA(SUPRA) AND HONBLE ALLAHABAD 11 ITA NO.329/CTK/2013 BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LUCKNOW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (SUPRA). THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT AND DIRECT HIM TO GRANT REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT. 13 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 /05/2017 IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES. SD/ - SD/ - ( PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ( N.S SAINI ) JUDICIA LMEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 26 /05/2017 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AKASH SHOVA BUILDING, SACHIVALAYA MARG, BHUBANESWAR 2. THE RESPONDENT. CIT, BHUBANESWAR. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. PR.CIT , 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//