Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

32(7) of the MIDC Act transferring the ownership of the land to the assessee, nor any such land which was already belonging to the Government of Maharashtra had been placed at the disposal of the assessee i.e. MIDC as per Sec. 43-1A of the MIDC Act. The Ld. A.R further in order to drive home his contention that in order to facilitate development of the land the State Government would only hand over the possession of the land to the assessee corporation i.e. MIDC and not the ownership, submitted that the scheme of the MIDC Act clearly revealed that the land required for development would be identified and thereafter acquired by the State Government, followed by handing over of only the possession of the same to the assessee corporation for the purpose of carrying out the development on the same. The Ld. A.R. explaining the functioning of the assessee corporation i.e MIDC, submitted that the assessee after developing the land would lease the same to the occupiers as per the powers vested with it under Sec. 14 of the MIDC Act. The Ld. A.R in order to fortify his claim that the ownership of the land remained with the Government of Maharashtra raised two fold contentions viz. (i) the 7/12 extracts clearly revealed that the assessee was only an occupier of the land (Kabzadhar) while for the ownership remained with the Government of Maharashtra; and (ii) that the transfer of any land could only be carried out by way of a registered instrument as per the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Registration Act, 1908, which however had not happened in the case of the assessee. On the basis of the aforesaid P a g e | 10 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) -2(1) contention it was the claim of the Ld. A.R that the assessee corporation was neither the owner nor the lessee of the lands under consideration. The Ld. A.R further adverting to the transfer of the land by the State Government to the assessee corporation by issuance of a notification under Sec. 32(7) of the MIDC Act or placing of the land already belonging to the State Government at the disposal of the assessee corporation as per Sec. 43-1A of the MIDC Act, submitted that in either of the aforesaid situations a publication of notification is contemplated as per the mandate of the MIDC Act. The Ld. A.R. taking support of the aforesaid contention submitted that as no such notification was published, therefore, it could safely be concluded beyond doubt that the lands acquired or belonging to the Government of Maharashtra had never been transferred to the assessee i.e. MIDC. The Ld. A.R. in order to support his aforesaid contention drew our attention to an affidavit of Mrs. Vaidehi Ranade, General Manager (land acquisition). Alternatively, it was submitted by the Ld. A.R that even otherwise a transfer of land mentioned in Sec. 32(7) of the MIDC Act could not be construed as a transfer of the ownership or title of the land to the assessee corporation by the State Government, as the same was merely a transfer of possession in order to facilitate necessary disposal. It was the claim of the Ld. A.R that the meaning of "transfer" had to be read contextually and the same being for a limited purpose of enabling the assessee corporation to deal with the land as per the provisions of the MIDC Act, thus could not be construed as a transfer of the ownership of the same. The Ld. A.R in order to support his aforesaid contention relied on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Narang Dairy Products (1996) 219 ITR 478 (SC) and State of Orissa Vs. Gouranga Prasad Gountia 1974 (40) Cuttack Law Times

13. We shall now advert to the core issue involved in the present appeal i.e as to whether the CIT(A) was right in law and the facts of the case in concurring with the A.O that as the lands under consideration were not owned by the Government of Maharashtra, hence the income arising therefrom viz. lease premiums, rent, interest income earned on the funds parked as deposits with the banks etc. were liable to be assessed as the income of the assessee corporation. We are of the considered view that as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Ch. Attchaiah (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC), it is obligatory on the part of the revenue authorities to assess the income in the hands of the right person and the right person alone. We have deliberated at length on the issue under consideration in the backdrop of the contentions advanced by the representatives for both the parties and perused the exhaustive material placed on record and the judicial pronouncements relied upon by both the parties to drive home their respective claims. It is the contention of the assessee before us that all the industrial lands are held by the assessee corporation on behalf of the State Government of Maharashtra. It is further claimed that the assets which are owned by the assessee in its own name viz. buildings and other assets are separately shown in its own name in its „balance sheet‟. We are of the considered view that the issue as to in what status the lands under consideration were held by the assessee corporation can be appreciated in the backdrop of the scheme of the "Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1961" [for short "MIDC Act"]. We find from a perusal of the MIDC Act that the assessee corporation viz. MIDC had been established for securing and assisting rapid and orderly P a g e | 26 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) -2(1) establishment and organisation of industries in industrial areas and industrial estates in the State of Maharashtra. On a perusal of Sec. 3(2) of the MIDC Act, it emerges that the assessee corporation viz. MIDC is competent to acquire, hold and dispose off property, both moveable and immovable, and to contract and do all things necessary for the purposes of the Act. Still further, a perusal of the functions of the assessee corporation as contemplated in Sec. 14(ii) of the MIDC Act reveals that the same particularly includes viz. (i). establishing and managing industrial estates at places selected by the state government; (ii). developing industrial areas selected by the State Government for the purpose and make them available for undertakings to establish themselves; and (iii). undertaking schemes or works, either jointly with other corporate bodies or institutions, or with Government or local authorities, or on an agency basis, in furtherance of the purpose for which the assessee corporation is established and all matters connected therewith. Still further, the assessee corporation as provided in Sec. 15 of the MIDC Act interalia stands vested with the powers viz. (i). to acquire and hold such property, both movable and immovable as the assessee corporation may deem necessary for the performance of any of its activities and to lease, sell, exchange or otherwise transfer any property held by it on such conditions as may be deemed proper by it; (ii). to purchase by agreement or to take on lease or under any form of tenancy any land, to erect such buildings and to execute such other works as may be necessary for the purpose of carrying out its duties and functions; (iii). to provide or cause to be provided amenities and common facilities in industrial estates and industrial areas and construct and maintain or cause to be maintained works and buildings thereof; (iv) to make available buildings on hire or sale to industrialists or persons intending to start industrial undertakings; (v). to construct buildings for the housing of the employees of such industries; (vi). to allot factory sheds or such buildings or parts of buildings, including residential tenements to suitable persons in the industrial estates established or developed by the assessee corporation; and (vii). to modify or rescind such allotments, including the right and power to evict the allottees concerned on breach of any of the terms or conditions of their allotment. We P a g e | 27 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) -2(1) find from a perusal of the aforementioned functions and powers of the assessee corporation that in furtherance of its object of establishing and developing industrial estates and industrial areas selected by the State Government for the said purpose, the assessee corporation subject to the provisions of the MIDC Act is vested with the powers of acquiring and holding property and leasing, selling, exchanging or transferring the same on such conditions as it may deem fit, as well as purchasing or taking on lease or under any form of tenancy any land, erect buildings on the same and make the same available on hire or sale to industrialists or persons intending to start industrial undertakings. Still further, the assessee corporation as per Sec. 17 of the MIDC Act also stands vested with the power to levy fees or service charges for providing amenities or common facilities viz. maintenance of roads, drainage, water supply, providing of street lighting etc in such industrial estates and industrial areas on the plot holders or other persons receiving benefit of said services or amenities. Further, perusal of Sec. 19 of the MIDC Act reveals that the property, fund and other assets vesting in the assessee corporation shall be held and applied by it, subject to the provisions and the purposes of the said Act.

14. We further find from a perusal of Sec. 32 of the MIDC Act that in case the State Government is of the opinion that any land is required for the purpose of development by the assessee corporation, or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of the said Act, then after putting the owner of the land or any other person interested therein to notice as regards its decision of acquiring such land, calling for his objections and disposing off the same after affording an opportunity of being heard to such person, the State Government shall acquire such land by publishing a notice in the official gazette. On a perusal of sub-section (4) of Sec. 32 of the MIDC Act, it emerges that when a notice under Sec. 32(1) of the Act is published in the official gazette, the land shall, on and from the date of such publication, vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Still further, as per sub-section (5) of Sec. 32 of the MIDC Act, where any land is vested with the State Government under sub-section (4) of Sec. 32 of the P a g e | 28 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) -2(1) MIDC Act, then the State Government may by notice in writing order any person who may be in possession of the land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or any person duly authorised by it in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice. As per sub- section (7) of Sec. 32 of the MIDC Act, after the land had been acquired for the assessee corporation or any local authority, the State Government shall, after it has taken possession thereof, by notification in the official gazette transfer the land to the assessee corporation or that local authority, as the case may be, for the purpose for which it was acquired and the provisions of Sec. 43-1A of the MIDC Act shall thereafter be applicable. As per Sec. 43-1A of the MIDC Act, for the furtherance of the Act, the State Government may by notification in the official gazette, upon such conditions as may be agreed between it and the assessee corporation, place at the latters disposal the lands vested in the State Government. That after such land is developed by, or under the control and supervision of the assessee corporation, it shall be dealt with by the corporation in accordance with the regulations made, and directions given by the State Government in this behalf. On a perusal of sub-section (3) of Sec. 43-1A, it emerges that if any land placed at the disposal of the assessee corporation under sub-section (1) of Sec. 43-1A is required at any time thereafter by the State Government, the assessee corporation shall replace it at the disposal of the State Government upon such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon. We further find that as per Sec. 33 and Sec. 36 of the MIDC Act, where any land is acquired by the State Government under Chapter VI of the Act, the compensation for acquisition of the same shall be paid by the State Government under the said statutory provision. Still further, in case the compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking the possession of the land, then as per Sec. 38 of the MIDC Act the State Government shall be liable to pay the said amount alongwith interest determined at the rate of four percent per annum from the date of taking of possession of the same till the said amount is paid or deposited.

16. Alternatively, we are further of the considered view that the aforesaid statutory provisions viz. Sec. 32 and Sec. 43-1A of the MIDC Act are inextricably interlinked and interwoven in order to facilitate furtherance of the objects of Act. We find from a conjoint reading of the aforesaid statutory provisions that after the land which in the opinion of the State Government is required for the purpose of development by the assessee corporation, or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of the Act, is compulsorily acquired under Sec. 32 of the MIDC Act by the State Government and gets absolutely vested with it free from all encumbrances, then the latter after being put into possession of the same transfers it to the assessee corporation for the purpose for which the same was acquired. After the land acquired and vested with the State Government is transferred by the State Government to the assessee corporation for the purpose for which the same was acquired, the same as per the provisions of Sec. 43-1A is placed at the disposal of the assessee corporation for being developed by, or under its control and supervision, and thereafter dealt with by the assessee corporation in the manner in accordance with the regulations made and directions given by the State Government in this behalf. In this regard it would be relevant and pertinent to observe that as per sub-section (3) of Sec. 43-1A of the MIDC Act, if any land placed at the disposal of the assessee corporation under sub-section (1) of Sec. 43-1A is required at any time thereafter by the State Government, the assessee corporation remains under an obligation to place it at the disposal of the State Government upon such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon. We have deliberated at length on the aforesaid statutory provisions viz. Sec. 32 and P a g e | 32 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) -2(1) Sec. 43-1A, and are of the considered view that in either of the situations contemplated therein viz. (i). that lands are compulsorily acquired by the State Government under Sec. 32 of the MIDC Act for development of the same by the assessee corporation, and are thereafter by way of a notification published in the official gazette transferred to the assessee corporation for the purpose for which it was acquired; or (ii). the lands vested with the State Government are by way of a notification published in the official gazette placed at the disposal of the assessee corporation, for being developed and dealt with by it in accordance with the regulations made and directions given by the State Government in this behalf, the assessee as per sub- section (3) of Sec. 43-1A remains under an obligation to place such land at the disposal of the State Government, as and when the same is required by the latter. Thus, from a careful consideration of the restrictive covenant contemplating the fettered and bridled rights as regards the lands transferred/placed at the disposal of the assessee corporation as embodied in Sec. 43-1A(3) r.w Sec. 32(7) of the MIDC Act, it can safely be gathered beyond doubt that though the land under either of the aforesaid statutory provisions is transferred/placed at the disposal of the assessee corporation, however as the assessee remains under an obligation to place such land at the disposal of the State Government, as and when the same is so required by the latter, thus, the same would clearly be in the nature of a „revocable transfer‟ and no absolute interest as regards such land can be said to have been vested with the assessee. Still further, our aforesaid view that there is no irrevocable transfer of land by the State Government to the assessee corporation also stands fortified on a perusal of the powers vested with the State Government under Sec. 56 of the MIDC Act to withdraw industrial estates or industrial areas or part thereof from the jurisdiction of the assessee corporation. On a perusal of Sec. 56 of the MIDC Act, it emerges that where the State Government is satisfied that in respect of any particular industrial estate or industrial area, or any part thereof, the purpose for which the corporation was established under this Act had been substantially achieved so as to render the continued existence of such estate or area or part thereof under the corporation unnecessary, the State P a g e | 33 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) -2(1) Government may, by notification in the official gazette declare that such industrial estate or industrial area or part thereof has been removed from the jurisdiction of the corporation. In the backdrop of our aforesaid observations we are thus of the considered view that even if the ownership of the lands was to be presumed as having been transferred to the assessee corporation, the same clearly being in the nature of a revocable transfer, hence the income arising therefrom viz. lease premiums, rent, interest income on bank deposits etc. would as per Sec. 61 r.w.s 63 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 be assessable in the hands of the transferor viz. the State Government of Maharashtra and could not be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee corporation. Before parting, we may herein observe that in the first round of appeal the Tribunal had vide its order dated 27.03.2015 dislodged the observations of the lower authorities that as Sec. 58 of the MIDC Act provided that in case of dissolution of the assessee all its assets would go to the State Government, hence it being a "revocable trust" would not be eligible for exemption under Sec. 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We find that the Tribunal expressing its disagreement with the view taken by the CIT(A) had observed that as "revocation" and "winding up" have different meaning and purpose, thus the fact that dissolution clause viz. Sec. 58 of the MIDC Act only provided for the manner of distribution of assets in the case of winding up, and every trust deed or memorandum is expected to have such kind of clause, therefore, the same cannot be construed for characterising the assessee as a "revocable trust" and therein disentitling the assessee of its claim of exemption under Sec. 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the said count. We find that the aforesaid observations which were recorded by the Tribunal in context of Sec. 58 of the MIDC Act, having been rendered in context of adjudicating the eligibility of the assessee for claim of exemption under Sec. 11 on a reading of the "dissolution clause", thus would have no bearing on our observations recorded on a perusal of Sec. 43-1A(3) r.w Sec. 32(7) and Sec. 56 of the MIDC Act, for concluding that the transfer of land by the State Government to the assessee corporation was a "revocable transfer" within the meaning of P a g e | 34 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) -2(1) Sec. 61 r.w.s 63 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Grounds of appeal No. 2 and 3 are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations.