Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Saharanpur Development Authority, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 25 November, 2010
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH `G': NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T. A. No.1157/Del/2011
Assessment Year : 2007-08
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Saharanpur Development
Saharanpur Range, Saharanpur. Vs. Authority, Hakikat Nagar,
Saharanpur.
PAN: AAALS0359L.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri G.S. Virk, Sr. DR.
Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Advocate.
ORDER
PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar, dated 25.11.2010 for the assessment year 2007-08 on the following grounds:-
"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law by allowing the exemption under section 11 of the I.T. Act 1961 for the period before granting of registration under section 12AA of the I.T. Act. 1961 which was granted w.e.f. 01.06.2007 (F.Y. 2007-08) i.e. A.Y. 2008-09 and onwards by ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Forest Corporation & Anothers Vs. DCIT (2008) 297 ITR (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that for claiming benefit under section11(1), registration under section 12AA is a condition precedent.2 ITA No.1157/Del/2011
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.33,34,400/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest received from "Infrastructure Development Fund" following the order of the Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2004-05 in ITA No.02/Del/2008 dated 23.12.2008 wherein the Hon'ble ITAT had decided the appeal relying on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported in 295 ITR 419 namely CIT vs. Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation and Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development & Finance Corporation Vs ACIT reported in (2006) 7 SOT 879 whereas the facts of the case are entirely different.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law by treating the interest income non taxable whereas as per the Accounting Standards and Income tax Act, 1961, the interest is revenue receipt and taxable."
2. We have heard Mr. G.S. Virk, learned Sr. DR and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the assessee.
3. Ground No.1 is covered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue by the decision of Delhi Bench `G' of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.131 & 132/Del of 2010, order dated 8th April, 2010 in the assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2003-04 and 2005-06 wherein at Para 7 it has held as follows:-
"7. In view of the matter we have taken above, we, therefore, hold that the CIT has rightly held that in respect of the application made on or after 1.6.2007, he has no power of condonation so as to grant registration from earlier date other than the first day of the financial year in which the application for registration is made. The order of CIT is, thus, upheld, and the ground raised by the assessee is rejected."3 ITA No.1157/Del/2011
4. Respectfully following the same, we allow ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in this appeal.
5. Ground No.2 is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Delhi Bench `G' of the Tribunal in ITA No.02(Del)/08 for the A.Y. 2004- 05, order dated 23/12/2008 wherein it is held as follows:-
"7. ..................... The assessee had received the funds under the orders of the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh and it was required to use such funds as per the direction of high power committee. It has no control over the funds. More so AO has not brought to tax the principle amount he is only treating the interest income on such principle amount as income of the assessee. If this logic is to be accepted then all the fees etc. over and above the expenditure ought to have been examined as income of the assessee."
6. Respectfully following the same we dismiss this ground of Revenue.
7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part.
8. This decision is pronounced in the Open Court on 18th January, 2013.
Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 18th January, 2013.