By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. These appeals are connected having arisen from common judgment and order dated 17.11.2005 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Lucknow) in five connected appeals i.e I.T.R. Nos. 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219 and 1220 relating to assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79, 1981-82, 1985-86 and 1987-88.

3. The appeals were admitted on the following three substantial questions of law :

(i) Whether the ITAT, was legally correct in holding that UPSIDC did not have the status of “Authority” as stipulated in Section 10(20A) of the Act and in rejecting its claim for exemption, thereunder ?

(ii) Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that in the absence of a specific notification having been issued by the State Government to create UPSIDC, it cannot be treated to be an “Authority” constituted in India “for the purposes of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns or villages or both” as stipulated under Section 10(20A) of the Act so as to be entitled to avail exemption thereunder ?

(iii) Whether on a true and correct interpretation of the preamble of U.P. Industrial Development Act (Act No. 19), 1962 and various provisions as appearing therein, as are related to setting of a requisite type of corporation and defining its area of operation, UPSIDC was liable to be treated as an ‘authority’ for the purposes of its claim for exemption under Section 10(20A) ?

4. The undisputed facts are that U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘UPSIDC’) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1956’) and is a State Government undertaking incorporated inter alia to promote, establish and execute industries, works, projects and enterprises and/or to provide aid or assistance to industrial undertakings, and/or to establish industries in Industrial Areas and Industrial Estates in State of U.P.

5. UPSIDC claimed exemption from Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1961’) on the ground that it is a “local authority” within the meaning of Section 10(20) or an authority constituted by or under an enactment in India under Section 10(20A) but it was not accepted by Income Tax Authorities, hence these appeals.

6. Learned counsel for appellant though has argued that UPSIDC may also be treated as a “local authority” under Section 10(20) of Act, 1961 but it does not appear that any such issue was raised before the Court below. Even otherwise during the course of argument it has not been disputed before us that the term “local authority” has not been defined under Act, 1961. It has been defined under Section 3 (31) of The General Clauses Act, 1897 which reads as under :

“3(31). “local authority” shall mean a municipal committee, district board, body of port Commissioners or other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with, the control or management of a municipal or local fund”

7. Counsel for appellant fairly conceded that considering aforesaid definition of “local authority” it is difficult to advance any submission so as to claim status of local authority for UPSIDC.

8. Thereafter, he proceeded and confined his arguments with respect of Section 10(20A) of Act, 1961, founded whereunder three substantial questions of law as noted above were formulated and appeals have been admitted.

9. Though in memo of appeals, appellant has claimed its existence under U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “UPID Act, 1962') but learned counsel for appellant fairly stated that neither before Tribunal nor before this Court, appellant could produce any notification showing its creation or existence under UPID Act, 1962.

10. In fact, learned counsel for appellant fairly admits that there is no notification issued under Section 3 of UPID Act, 1962 resulting in creation of UPSIDC thereunder, therefore, claim of appellant that it has been constituted under UPID Act