MUMBAI WATERFRONTS CENTRE, MUMBAI V. DIT (E), MUMBAI

ITA 6530/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3205 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , !' #$, % , & BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM / I.T.A. NO.6530/MUM/2012 ( %' ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) MUMBAI WATERFRONTS CENTRE C/O.P.K.DAS & ASSOCIATES SANKALP, 5 TH FLOOR, PLOT NO.1040, OPP. SAYANI ROAD, PRABHADEVI,MUMBAI- 400025 ' / VS. DIT (EXEMPTION) PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, 6 TH FLOOR, LALBAUG, MUMBAI - 400019 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AADTM0773B ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / DATE OF HEARING: 18.03.2016 !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:16.06.2016 #$ / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: THIS IS AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.09.201 2 PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI [HER EINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE LEARNED DIT(E)] RELEVANT TO T HE A.Y.2012-13. WHEREIN THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT H AS BEEN CANCELLED IN ASSESSEE BY: SHRI A. H. DALAL DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI N. P. SINGH ITA NO.6530/MUM/12 A.Y.2012-13 2 VIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S.12AA(1)(B)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961( IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLA NT TRUST MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR THE REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE AC T IN THE PRESCRIBED FROM NO.10A ON 28.03.2012. THE TRUST HAS BEEN CONS TITUTED BY A TRUST DEED ON 10.01.2010 AND WAS REGISTERED WITH TH E CHARITY COMMISSIONER, MUMBAI ON 13.04.2010. ONE OF THE TRU STEES, SHRI P.K.DAS, AN ARCHITECT BY PROFESSION IS A PROPRIETOR OF M/S.P.K.DAS & ASSOCIATES (PLANNERS AND ARCHITECTS). THE TRUST HA S BEEN FORMED INTER ALIA TO CARRY OUT OR SUPPORT RESEARCH STUDIES, DOCU MENTATION OF VARIOUS WATERFRONTS, TO CONDUCT DIALOGUES AND JOINT PROGRAM MES WITH VARIOUS OTHER ORGANIZATIONS HAVING INTEREST IN URBAN DEVELO PMENT ISSUES OF MUMBAI AND ALL PARTS OF INDIA, TO CONDUCT SEMINARS, WORKSHOPS AND CONFERENCES ON MATTERS RELATING TO URBAN DEVELOPMEN T AND MORE PARTICULARLY OF ISSUES PERTAINING TO DEVELOPMENT AN D RESEARCH ON WATERFRONTS AND WATER BODIES OF MUMBAI AND OTHER PA RTS OF INDIA ETC. AS PER THE OBJECT CLAUSE, THE COLLABORATION AND JOI NT ACTIVITIES MAY INCLUDE RESEARCH STUDIES, CONFERENCES, DOCUMENTATIO N, PREPARING DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND PROPOSALS. THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT TRUST IS CARRYING OUT SOME OF THE PROJECTS LIKE PUTTING UP O F BANDRA STAND, PROJECT AT CARTER ROAD BANDRA, IMPROVEMENT OF THE S URROUNDING OF GATEWAY OF INDIA, JUHU BEACH, DADAR PRABHADEVI BEAC H, CLEANING AND DESILTING OF MITHI RIVER, BEAUTIFICATION OF MALAD C REEK ETC. THE ITA NO.6530/MUM/12 A.Y.2012-13 3 APPLICANT ALSO FURNISHED A PUBLICATION TITLED OPEN MUMBAI. THEREAFTER, THE AUTHORITY CONSIDERED THE MATTER AND REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT U/S.12AA(1)(B) READ WI TH SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. FEELING AGGRIEVED THE APPELLANT FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEAR NED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPEL LANT HAS ARGUED THAT THE AUTHORITY HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION ON WRONG NOTIONS SPECIFICALLY WHEN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST WERE NOT FOUND AGAINST THE OBJECT AND THE ACTIVITY OF THE TRUST WAS GENUINE ON E. ON APPRAISAL OF THE ORDER IN QUESTION IT CAME INTO THE NOTICE THAT THE AUTHORITY AFTER EXAMINING OF THE RECORD OBSERVED THAT THE TRUST DID NOT RAISE ANY INCOME AND INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCI AL YEAR 2009-10 AND 2010-11. IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12, THE TR UST RECEIVED THE DONATION TO THE TUNE OF RS.20,16,740/- AND INCURRED AN EXPENDITURE TO THE TUNE OF RS.23,51,659/- TOWARD ORGANIZATION OF OPEN MUMBAI EXHIBITION AT THE NATIONAL GALLERY OF MODERN ART IN MARCH, 2012. THE APPELLANT RECEIVED DONATION OF RS.9,77,940/- FROM A DANI ENTERPRISES LTD. BUT THE SAME WAS NOT FOUND AS DONATION BECAUSE IT WAS PAID TO SHRI P.K.DAS ONE OF THE TRUSTEE BUT THIS AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE TRUST. SECONDLY THE APPELLANT DID N OT SUBMITTED ANY PROPOSAL / PROJECTS /PLANS TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS ITA NO.6530/MUM/12 A.Y.2012-13 4 OBJECT. OBSERVING NON JUSTIFIABLE ACTION OF THE AU THORITY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REJECTION OF REGISTRATION ON THE ABOV E SAID GROUNDS IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. MERELY, NON RECEIPT OF INCOME AND TO NOT TO INCUR ANY EXPENDITURE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 AND 2010- 11 ARE NOT THE GOOD GROUND TO REJECT THE REGISTRATION. IT CAN NOT BE TANTAMOUNT TO BE ILLEGAL OR CONTRARY TO THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST. THE RECEIPT OF THE DONATION TO THE TUNE OF RS.20,16,740/- FOR THE F.Y. 2011-12 AND EXPENDITURE OF RS.23,51,659/- AND FURTHER RECEIVED DONATION OF RS.9,77,940/- FROM M/S.ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD. NOWHE RE LEADS TO THE THE CIRCUMASTANCES TO CONSIDER THE OBJECT AS INGEN UINE. THE ORDER NOWHERE SPEAKS ABOUT THE INGENUINE ACTIVITY OF THE TRUST AND ALSO NOWHERE SPEAKS ABOUT THE FACTS THAT THE SPECIFIC WO RK WAS EXECUTING BY THE TRUST CONTRARY TO THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST. THE SATISFACTION OF THE AUTHORITY SHOULD BE BASED ON THE SOME COGENT AND CO NVINCING REASONS ON RECORDS. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE LIST OF PROJECT WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED BELOW:- LIST OF PROJECT RECOMMENDED: A) INCREDIBLE SEAFRONTS: PROMENADES AND PLAZAS 1. BANDRA BANDSTAND 2. CARTER ROAD 3. GATEWAY OF INDIA 4. JUHU BEACH 5. DADAR PRABHADEVI BEACH (PROPOSED) ITA NO.6530/MUM/12 A.Y.2012-13 5 B) FROM RIVERS TO NALLAHS TO RIVER AGAIN: 6. MITHI RIVER C) CREEKS AND MANGROVES: 7. MALAD CREEK D) WETLANDS CONSERVATION: 8. WETLANDS AT SEWARI E) LAKES, PONDS AND TANKS: 9. BANDRA TALAO F) INTEGRATION OF NALLAHS: 10. IRLA NALLAH G) PLAYGROUNDS, PARKS AND GARDENS: 11. KAIFI AZMI UDYAN 12. BAJI PRABHU UDYAN H) PLOTS AND LAYOUT RECREATIONAL GROUNDS (PROPOSED) 13. PLOT IN JUHU 14. MAHIM 15. MUMBAI CENTRAL 16. VILE PARLE I) HISTORIC FORTS AND PRECINCTS 17. BANDRA FORT J) HIILS AND FORESTS (PROPOSED PROVISIONS): 18. MANDALA HILL, CHEMBUR 19. GILBERT HILL, ANDHERI 20. SANJAY GANDHI NATIONAL PARK, BORIVALI 21. AAREY MILK COLONY, GOREGAON K) CITY FOREST: 22. JUHU FOREST ITA NO.6530/MUM/12 A.Y.2012-13 6 23. THE PORT TRUST GARDEN 24. MAHIM NATURE PARK 25. VEER JIJAMATA UDYAN L) RAILWAY STATIONS (PROPOSED): 26. KHAR STATION 27. DADAR RAILWAY STATION 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT THE DIT(E) HAS PASSED THE ORDER IN QUESTION WRONGLY AND ILLEGALLY WHICH IS NOT LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES O F LAW. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN QUESTION AND DIRECT THE CONC ERNED AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW. 5. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH JUNE , 2016. SD/- SD/- (R.C.SHARMA) (AMARJIT SINGH) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %& # /JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ( MUMBAI; )# DATED : 15 TH JUNE, 2016 MP MP MP MP ITA NO.6530/MUM/12 A.Y.2012-13 7 * +%'#, -,(' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. * ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. * / CIT 5. -./ &&01 , 01' , ' ( / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. /34 5 / GUARD FILE. ' / BY ORDER, - & //TRUE COPY// ./$ ! /(DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ' ( / ITAT, MUMBAI