9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 019 - SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI P. K. GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Revenue by: Shri.M. Vijay Kumar, Add. CIT Assessee by: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyam, CA ORDER Per B. R. Baskaran, Accountant Member All appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the orders passed by the learned CIT(A), Davanagere and they relate to the Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2011-12. 2. At the time of hearing, the learned AR submitted that the appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2011-12 are covered by the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08-08-2019 issued by CBDT prescribing monetary limit of ₹ 50.00 lakhs for the revenue for preferring appeals challenging the order passed by Ld CIT(A), since the tax effect involved in these appeals are less than 50 lakhs. The learned DR, in principle, accepted the submissions made by the learned AR. However, he pleaded that the Revenue should be given liberty to move appropriate application for recall of the orders, if it is found later that the issues contested in these appeals are covered by exceptions provided in the circular issued from time to time. 3. We heard the parties and perused the record. Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court in the case of Institute of Banking and Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal, 211 ITR 293, wherein it was held that the assessee is entitled to set off of brought forward amount of excess application. The Revenue is aggrieved by the decision so rendered by learned CIT(A). 7. The learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches in respect of both the issues. He further submitted that an identical issue was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Bangalore Development Authority Vs. DCIT (2019) 73 ITR Tribunal 711 (Bang.) wherein the Tribunal has held that the activities of the assessee therein was not hit by proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. The learned AR submitted that the objects of the assessee herein are identical with the objects of Bangalore Development Authority. In this regard, he took our attention to para 14 of Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act and submitted the assessee herein as also formed with similar objectives. The learned AR further invited our attention to the submissions made before the learned CIT(A) which read as follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ution of development scheme - (2) The authority may also from time to time make and take up any new or additional development schemes - (i) on its own initiative, if satisfied of the sufficiency of its resources; or (ii) on the recommendations of the Local Authority, if the local authority places at the disposal of the authority, the necessary funds for framing and carrying out any scheme; or iii) otherwise (3) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, the Government may, whenever it deems it necessary, require the authority to take up any development scheme or work, and execute it subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by the Government. A perusal of the above would show that the primary purpose of the appellant is to ensure orderly growth of urban areas in Chitradurga district through proper planning. For this purpose the appellant acquires sites, forms the layout and sells them to various persons. We further state that Sections 16 17 of KUDA Act provides for the components of development scheme and procedures to be followed. The approval of the Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant is to acquire sites, construct house and sell them to general public and economically weaker sections and other deserving sections of the public. Sites are allotted ai nominal rates and the prices charged are not commercial prices. Therefore, it is clear that the activities of acquiring and selling sites are not carried out with commercial/profit motive. It is submitted that once the dominant object of an institution is charitable in nature, the first proviso will not apply just because certain activities which have the characteristics of a business are carried on. 2.5 We rely on the decision of the Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Vs Additional Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bangalore (ITA No. 378/Bang/2013 dated 4.9.2015). The Hon ble Tribunal held that the activity of KIADB in acquiring sites and developing industrial area and selling the sites/factory sheds to various persons is not hit by the first proviso to S.2(15). We refer to Para 49 of the order: 49. Keeping in mind the above factual aspects and provisions of the KIDA Act, and principle laid down in the afores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
