TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, TIRUPATI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI

The learned CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant being eligible to claim exemption in terms of section 10(46) did make the application u/s. 10(46) vide F.No. 2198/B1/2005 dt. 03 September 2013 and consequently erred in dismissing the appeal arbitrarily. 4. Without prejudice to ground Nos. 2 and 3, the learned CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that substantial question of law with regard to granting approval u/s. 12AA w.e.f. AY. 2003-04 has been admitted u/s. 260A by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh in ITTA No. 568 of 2013 by order dated 22 November 2013 and consequently exemption u/s.11 cannot be summarily denied without waiting for the decision of the Hon'ble High Court”.

Briefly stated, Tirupati Urban Development Authority, herein after called as ‘assessee’ or TUDA is constituted by the Andhra Pradesh State Government with the object of promoting and securing the infrastructure development of all or any of the areas situated in the Tirupati Urban Development Authority. It filed its return of income for the AY. 2012-13 admitting total income at NIL, after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The AO required assessee to produce certificate issued u/s. 12AA of the Act. In support of its claim, assessee stated that the CIT, Tirupati rejected its objections for registration u/s. 12AA, which was confirmed by the ITAT. Further intimated that the matter is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh on an appeal by assessee. Assessee also further submitted that its application seeking exemption u/s. 10(46) before the CBDT is also pending. AO found that assessee has neither registered u/s. 12AA for claiming exemption u/s. 11 nor got any notification issued by the CBDT for claiming exemption u/s. 10(46). AO therefore completed the assessment assessing the incomes under various heads of the income and raising demand.

Since the facts are similar and assessee has neither registered u/s. 12AA nor got any exemption u/s. 10(46) by issuance of notification, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO, following the orders in earlier years.

Ld. Counsel submitted that the matter of registration is pending before the Hon'ble High Court and appeal filed by assessee is subjudice. It was further submitted that in the case of HUDA, the ITAT, Hyderabad subsequently reviewed the decision on the issue and granted registration u/s. 12AA to HUDA. The assessee is also constituted similarly to HUDA. It is submitted that the Tribunal can modify the order granting for registration. Without prejudice to the above, it was further submitted that HUDA has got notification issued by the CBDT u/s. 36(1)(xii) by the notification S.O. No. 3393 dt. 19-12-2008 and submitted that TUDA is also likely to get such a notification, if the CBDT accepts its petition. Ld. Counsel reiterated that HUDA and TUDA are being similarly based corporations constituted under the respective laws with similar object of promoting and securing the infrastructure development. It was submitted that the orders of the ITAT may be re-considered and assessee may be granted benefit.

Ld.DR, however, relied on the orders of the Ld.CIT(A).

We have considered the issue and perused the facts as placed on record. It is true that in this case, the CIT, Tirupati did not grant registration u/s. 12AA and that order was confirmed by the ITAT in its own case. The matter is presently pending adjudication by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Moreover, the issue

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed.