UTTARAKHAND ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION & POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

1. The above captioned five separate appeals by the assessee are preferred against separate orders of the CIT(A), Dehradun dated 16.05.2018 for A.Y 2010-11 and order dated 27.02.2018 for A.Ys 2011- 12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a State Pollution Control Board set up under section 4 of the Water (Prevention & Control of pollution) Act, 1974, with duties and functions of prevention and control of pollution in terms of various pollution controlling acts, viz. Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Hazardous Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1998, etc.

The assessee has applied for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv)/ 10(46) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] w.r.e in terms of power vested with CBDT/CIT(E) and its authority u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act, along with and application for condonation of delay, which is as under:

10(230) (iv) FYs 2007-08 Under Secretary- CBDT 6.9.2017 to 2010-11

CIT(Exemption), Lucknow 11.9.2017

The assessee has been granted exemption u/s 10(46) of the Act for the following years- Assessment Years Notification No. & Date AYs 2015-16 to 2019-20 73/2016, dated 17-08-2016 AYs 2020-21 to 2024-25 28/2020, dated 27-05-2020

The solitary issue involved in all these appeals by the assessee pertains to the approval to be granted u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Act.

It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the assessee enjoys exemption u/s 10(46) of the Act for the AYs 2015-16 to 2019-20 (years subsequent to the impugned years), wherein it was notified u/s 10(46) by CBDT/CIT (E) vide notification No. 73/2016, dated17-08-2016.

The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee-company was incorporated in the year 2002 and since then, it has been performing its duties and functions as issued by the Government of India in the area of environment protection and pollution control and there has been no change in its activities since then. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board and State Pollution Control Board, Odisha wherein the CBDT has notified both of these Boards with retrospective effect and no person is adversely affected by giving retrospective effect to these notifications.

The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that since there has been no change in the activities performed by the assessee since its inception and the assessee has been notified for FY 2014-15 onwards on the basis of the same activities. Also, in assessee’s case as well, no person will be adversely affected if the assessee board is notified retrospectively. In light of the above facts and other Boards notified retrospectively, the assessee deserves to be granted an exemption u/s 10(46) of the Act with retrospective effect and exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) from A.Y 2008-09 to A.Y 2011-12 and exemption u/s 10(45) from A.Y 2012-13 to Α.Υ 2014-15.

The ld. counsel for the assessee also placed on record copy of ITAT order dated 24.05.2022 of the co-ordinate bench wherein in the assessment in the cases for AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 to be void abinitio.

Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the assessee has applied for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv)/ 10(46) of the Act w.r.e in terms of power vested with CBDT/CIT(E) and its authority u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. It is also not controverted that the CBDT has notified Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board and State Pollution Control Board, Odisha with retrospective effect and no person is adversely affected by giving retrospective effect to these notifications. We find that the ld. DR has not controverted that there has been any change in the activities performed by the assessee since its inception and the assessee has been notified for FY 2014-15 onwards on the basis of the same activities.

However, we find that the question involved in these appeals are dependent on the approval u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Act which is pending before the CBDT. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the matter be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer till such time the petition for approval is disposed of by the CBDT.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in to 3194 and 5092/DEL/2018 are allowed for statistical purposes.