IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.87,88 & 89/Alld/2020 AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 th th ACIT (Exemption), Allahabad Development Authority, 7 & 8 Lucknow Floor, Indira Bhawan, Civil Lines, Allahabad, U.P.

PAN:AAALA0144P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue by: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR Date of hearing: 29.11.2024 Date of pronouncement: 31.01.2025 O R D E R PER SHRI. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.:

These three appeals, all filed by the assessee, bearing ITA Nos. 87, 88 & 89/Alld/2020 for the Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2016-17, respectively, are directed against the separate appellate orders dated 19.02.2020, 20.02.2020 & 20.02.2020, respectively passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Allahabad, (hereinafter called the “CIT(A)”) in Appeal Nos. CIT(A), Allahabad / 10463/2016-17, CIT(A), Allahabad / 10228/2017-18 and CIT(A), Allahabad / 10332/2018-19, respectively for the assessment years 2014-15, 2015- 16 and 2016- 17. The appellate proceedings had arisen before the learned CIT(A), from separate assessment orders under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 27.12.2016 for the assessment year 2014-15, 14.12.2017 for the assessment year 2015-16 and 26.12.2018 for the assessment year 2016-17, passed by the Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemption), Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the “ld. AO”). These three appeals were heard in open court through physical hearing mode.

2. Since, all these three appeals involve many common issues, these three appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in memo of appeal filed with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter called “the Tribunal”) for the assessment year

2014-15 read as under:-

“1. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the income of the appellant at Rs. 19,52,31,111/- (Rs.19.52 Crores rounded up) as made up of following:-

and in subjecting the same to taxation.

2. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in sustaining the denial of exemption under section 11 read with section 12 of the Act for the reason that the same is hit by first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and other reasons and subjecting the income as computed by him at Rs.19,52,31,111/-, to taxation.

3. BECAUSE the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in distinguishing the following series of judgments which fully cover the issue of eligibility of exemption under section

11 and non applicability of provision to section 2(15):-

a) judgment and order dated 10.11.2006, the objects for attainment of which the appellant/Authority had come into existence, had already been adjudged to be the objects of the 'general public utility' in the appellant's/Authority's own case in ITA No.390(Alld)/2006 by the Hon'ble ITAT;

b) this judgment was based on the decision of a Coordinate Bench i.e. ITAT, Lucknow in a bunch of appeals, rendered vide order dated 25.07.2005;

c) this judgment of the Lucknow Bench of ITAT had since been approved by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow vide judgment and order dated 16.09.2013 in the appeals preferred by the revenue;

d) the said judgment and order dated 16.09.2013, the Hon'ble High Court had specifically dealt with the applicability of the amended provision of section 2(15)

effective from the assessment year 2009-10;

e) the judgment and order dated 16.09.2013 (supra) had attained finality as the revenue did not challenge the same by taking the matter before the Hon'ble High Court; and f) since then, the judgment of the Allahabad Bench of ITAT in ITA No.390(Alld)2016 as has been referred to (a) above, has also has been approved by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court vide judgment and order dated 29.08.2016 in the appeal filed by the reven