ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.) THE CIT, Ludhiana has preferred this appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 against the order of the Tribunal, "Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified to declare the assessee as charitable institution entitled for registration under s. 12AA disregarding the fact that the activities of the institution are not of charitable nature and that the income of the assessee is not the income as described in the ss. 11 and 12 of the IT Act, 1961 -
(2.) THE respondent is an Improvement Trust constituted under the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922. The principal object of the trust is to bring about improvement in the town by providing streets, housing facilities or making provision for drinking water etc. The trust was earlier granted exemption under s. 10(20A). On The Tribunal upheld the claim of the assessee and held that activities of the trust were charitable. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is as hereunder : "A perusal of the above s. 22 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922, shows that it empowers the trust, when the conditions prescribed in the said are prevailing, to frame a general improvement scheme for the public utility of a local area or part thereof. It is in pursuance of this provision, that the assessee is undisputedly carrying on its activities. Secs. 23 to 26 of the said Act provided for street schemes, development and expansion scheme, housing accommodation schemes and rehousing scheme. The activities of the assessee trust are also in consonance with these statutory schemes. It is evident from this that the object of the assessee trust is to provide benefit to the public with its local limits, rather than to itself. This apart, it is on record, that the same learned CIT as who has passed the impugned order, has, on similar facts and circumstances, granted registration to the Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, vide order dt. registration was also granted to the Improvement Trust, Sangrur and the Improvement Trust, Patiala."
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to judgment of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board (2008) 214 CTR (SC) 81 : (2007) 295 ITR 561 (SC), wherein the question for consideration was the meaning to be assigned to expression "any other object of general public utility" in s. 2(15) of the Act. It was held that the said expression includes all objects which promote welfare of general public. Gujarat Maritime Board, for development of minor ports in the State of Gujarat, was held to be charitable institution.;