Joginder Singh, J.M.: This appeal is by assessee challenging order of learned CIT dt. 30th Sept., 2003 on following grounds: "1. learned CIT is not justified in rejecting application of appellant for registration under s. 12A(a) of IT Act, 1961 by holding: (a) That charitable institution provides service free of cost and for no gain and for benefit of public at large and nothing charitable is being done ignoring main objects and purpose for which appellant authority has been created. (b) That facilities being provided for benefit of general public are not for charitable purpose but for getting better value of plots being sold by authority. That learned CIT is not justified in holding that words general public utility in context of appellant mean benefits derived by general public other than plot holders. That learned CIT is not justified in comparing appellant with private builders completely ignoring fact that appellant authority has not been created with object of earning profit but whole profit has to be spent for benefit of area itself being developed by authority. That learned CIT has erred in interpreting judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Asstt. CIT vs. Thanthi Trust (2001) 165 CTR (SC) 681: (2001) 247 ITR 785 (SC) by holding that same is applicable to only registered trusts completely ignoring objects of authority which are clearly for general public utility and charitable in nature. That appellant craves leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal before appeal is heard or disposed of." Brief facts in present appeal are that assessee, i.e., Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (in short PUDA ), local authority constituted under Punjab Regional & Town Planning & Development Act, 1995, applied for registration under s. 12A of Act. learned CIT rejected application for registration on ground that objects of institution are commercial in nature. As per assessee, in absence of registration under s. 12A, income of authority/assessee would be liable to tax. assessee is in appeal challenging aforesaid order of learned CIT before Tribunal. During arguments, we have heard Sh. Ajay Vohra, learned counsel for assessee and Shri R.K. Goyal, learned CIT-Departmental Representative. gist of arguments on behalf of assessee is that assessee was constituted under Punjab Regional and Town Planning & Development Act, 1995 for planned development of State. learned counsel invited our attention to purpose and objects of Act. k plea was raised that on identical facts Patiala Urban Planning & Development Authority was granted registration by learned CIT, Patiala, vide order dt. 28th Sept., 2005, copy of which was furnished by learned counsel. It was also contended that on identical facts Department of Revenue granted registration to Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority (MHADA). Mr. Vohra further contended that objects of assessee are of charitable nature. method of acquiring land by authority/Government was explained. As per objects of assessee it was contended that assessee is constituted to regulate well planned development within State. Mr. Vohra further tried to distinguish private colonizers with assessee by contending that objects of private colonizers is to earn maximum profit and they are not developing bigger projects like flyover, drainage, etc. and their field is very small. assessee was claimed to be fulfilling social responsibilities by contending that objects of assessee are not profit making. It was also contended that assessee is allotting plots to economically weaker sections which private colonizers are not doing so assessee cannot be equated with private colonizers. Proper civic amenities are planned and provided to public at large and charges are fixed by authority as assessee is not guided by profit motive and if there is any profit that is used for maintenance of parks, schools, roads, street lights, etc. In nutshell, it was contended that keeping in view intent, purposes and objects, assessee may be granted registration as charitable institution. Reliance was placed on certain judicial pronouncements which we will discuss while concluding issue. On other hand, learned CIT-Departmental Representative kly defended rejection of application of assessee by contending that assessee is just like private colonizers making huge profits by giving little compensation to actual land owners and assessee is working like big colonizer. Mr. Goyal kly pleaded that to become eligible for registration under s. 12A activity should be wholly charitable. learned CIT-Departmental Representative explained activities of assessee by putting it in juxtaposition with big builders/colonizers by contending that similar facilities are provided by private colonizers also. So whole activity is to be seen. On issue of granting registration to Patiala Urban Planning and Development Authority, it was contended that if learned CIT has committed mistake, same should not be repeated by last fact-finding authority and orders are not binding on Tribunal. Reliance was placed on decision of Hon ble apex Court in case pronounced in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Union of India (2006) 201 CTR (SC) 346: (2006) 282 ITR 273 (SC) by contending that res judicata is not applicable in income-tax proceedings and error committed by Department should not be perpetuated. Reliance was placed upon certain judicial pronouncements which we will discuss while concluding issue. In nutshell, learned CIT-Departmental Representative defended orders of learned CIT-I, Chandigarh. We have considered rival submissions. In present appeal there is no dispute to fact that assessee moved application in Form No. 10A and furnished relevant information to learned Asstt. CIT. There is also no dispute that assessee was constituted under Act of Government for making better planning and regulating development and use of land in planning areas delineated for purpose, preparation of regional plans/master plans and implementation thereof and also for guiding and directing planning and development process in State. major thrust of argument on behalf of learned counsel for assessee is that PUDA is of general public utility and was established to satisfy need for housing accommodation of various sections of people of Punjab and specially for planning and development in cities, town and villages and is of charitable nature. Before coming to any conclusion, we are supposed to see meaning of word charitable purpose which has been defined in s. 2(15) of Act which includes relief to poor, education, medical relief and advancement of any other object of general public utility. k contention was raised by learned counsel for assessee that assessee/PUDA is also executing development of following works/infrastructures: (a) Development of rehri market (b) Water supply and sewerage (c) Development of sports complexes (d) Bridges (e) Bus queue shelters (f) Bus stands (g) Swimming pools (h) Community centres (i) Public toilets (j) Development of parks (k) Cremation grounds (l) Construction of schools, etc. Regarding purpose of Act, which is available at p. 13 of paper book of assessee and to which our attention was also drawn, it speaks about various amenities and utilities as has been mentioned in s. 2(b) of said Act. learned counsel for assessee during argument took k plea that on identical facts registration under s. 12A of Act was accorded to Patiala Urban Planning & Development Authority, Patiala, vide order under s. 12AA of Act, dt. 28th Sept., 2005 by CIT, Patiala, objects of which are identical to present assessee. If Act under which assessee was constituted is analysed, it includes State of Punjab excluding Patiala. Shri Ajay Vohra contended that it can be said that Patiala authority is part of State and when registration has been granted to Patiala authority, then no two yardsticks should be adopted. At outset, we are of view that we are not agreeable with contention of learned counsel because if intention of creating Patiala authority was same then there was no need of its creation as same objects would have been fulfilled by bigger unit, i.e., assessee. At same time, res judicata is not applicable in income-tax proceedings. We do not want to comment as to why and how registration was granted to Patiala authority as same is not pending before us for adjudication. Reliance can be placed upon decision pronounced by Hon ble apex Court in case of Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 349: (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC) wherein Hon ble apex Court held that "it is almost as important that law should be settled permanently as that it should be settled correctly but there may be circumstances where public interest demands that previous decision be reviewed and reconsidered. doctrine of stare decises should not deter Court from overruling earlier decision, if it is satisfied that such decision is manifestly wrong or precedes upon mistaken assumption in regard to existence or continuation of statutory provision or is contrary to another decision of Court." However, two views reasonably may be possible. Perpetuation of error is not heroism. However, we make it clear that this observation of ours should not be treated to bear any effect in case of Patiala authority. At same time, order passed by lower authority is not binding on Tribunal. However, it may be good arguable point by parties. This issue requires deliberation from different angle whether assessee was constituted to provide any charity to public at large or to satisfy needs for housing accommodation for people of Punjab and also planning and development of cities, towns and villages or whether development in such way is of charitable nature. plea was raised by learned counsel for assessee that funds are provided by Punjab Government or generated by assessee itself. To generate its funds for carrying out its objects, assessee is acquiring lands, developing them and selling plots to general public who apply for same. Even economically weaker strata of society is generally applying. It is not case that assessee is allotting houses to poor masses free of cost. Hon ble apex Court in case of Asstt. CIT vs. Thanthi Trust (2001) 165 CTR (SC) 681: (2001) 247 ITR 785 (SC) has deliberated upon issue of charitable purposes wherein founder of daily newspaper created trust in March, 1954 and objects of trust were originally to establish newspaper as organ of educated public opinion for Tamil reading public. In July, 1957, supplementary deed making trust irrevocable and another supplementary deed for establishing and running school/college for teaching journalism were added. question before Hon ble Court was whether income of trust was exempt from income-tax during relevant period. Hon ble apex Court while coming to particular conclusion reversed decision of Hon ble High Court of Madras and held that trust did not fall within provisions of s. 11(4A), as it then stood, and was not entitled to exemption from tax. Hon ble apex Court also considered various judicial pronouncements which were referred to it by respective counsel as are available in said order specially at p. 787. However, there is major shift in law with regard to institutions who are claiming charities. It is well known fact that in some of situations provisions of law is misused in names of charities. If expanded/broader latitude is extended to word charity, then there are so many institutions/Departments who will try to come under umbrella of this provision to misuse provision. Therefore, for broad development of nation/society, strict and positive vigil is required so that provision can be saved from its misuse in any manner. We are aware that no activity can be carried on efficiently, properly unless and until it is carried out on business principle but it does not mean that provision is misused in any manner under garb of charity and any institution be allowed to become richer and richer under garb of charity by making it non-tax payable organization. In cases of Addl. CIT vs. Surat Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (1979) 13 CTR (SC) 378: (1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra (1981) 22 CTR (SC) 106: (1981) 130 ITR 28 (SC), it was held that what is predominant object of activity whether, it is to carry out charitable purpose and not to earn profit purpose should be that it should not lose its charitable character- major thrust of learned counsel for assessee is that PUDA is of general public utility as it satisfies need for housing accommodation for section of people of State of Punjab and is also doing planning and development of cities, towns and villages. We are not agreeable with argument of learned counsel because charitable institution provides services for charitable purposes free of cost and not for gain. In present scenario, similar activities are performed by big colonizers/developers who are earning huge profit. If this registration is granted, then we will open pandora box and anybody will claim exemption from tax. If accounts of assessee are analysed, it has turned into huge profit-making agency for which it is taking money from general public. In such situation, we are of view that no charity is involved and if any institution of public importance like schools, community centers are created/developed, assessee is charging cost of it from public at large and money is coming from coffer of Government. It can be said that objects/activities of assessee are more of commercialized nature and we do not find any charity in it. At same time, if these facilities are not provided, then nobody will purchase plot. It can be said that it is means of attracting people so that maximum people may apply for same and hidden cost is already added, so no charity is involved. At best, assessee can be said to be authority created to help it to achieve certain objects. It can be said that it is duty of Government to create/provide all these facilities to public at large, which is being done through his agency in particular area. At same time, funds which are provided to assessee by Government is again public money or generated from public itself, so where is charity? If activities of assessee and arguments of both learned counsel are put in juxtaposition, it can be said that objects of assessee, though claimed to be charitable, but actually are of purely commercial nature where profit motive is involved. It is known fact that assessee is acquiring land at very low prices and selling same land on very higher rates and is earning profit therefrom. new trend has also emerged that PUDA, i.e., assessee has started auctioning plots by way of bidding at market rate and sometimes more than that and charging interest on belated payments. In such situation, we are of view that no charity is involved. Rather assessee has converted itself into big businessman. Similar development/infrastructure/facilities are also provided by private developers these days, then they will also claim status of charitable institution. During argument, learned counsel relied upon decision of Hon ble apex Court pronounced in case of Addl. CIT vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufactures Association (supra) where assessee was incorporated under Companies Act wherein dominant or primary purpose of assessee was to promote commerce and trade in art silk yarn, raw silk, cotton yarn, art silk cloth, silk cloth and cotton cloth as set out in cl. (a) and object specified in cls. (b) to (e) and object was found to be public utility not involving carrying on of any activity for profit within meaning of s. 2(15), assessee was held to be entitled for exemption under s. 11(1)(a) of Act. However, Hon ble Justice Sen passed dissenting order but in present case there is profit motive of assessee, so will not help in any manner. Reliance was also placed on decision of Hon ble apex Court pronounced in case of CIT vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (1986) 52 CTR (SC) 75: (1986) 159 ITR 1 (SC) wherein object of assessee was development of roads, improving facilities for road transport and providing efficient and economical system of road transport service, entire capital was provided by State Government and profits were utilized for providing amenities to passengers and welfare of labour and approved expansion program and remainder to be made over to State Government for road development, it was held to be of charitable purposes and thus income was exempted but it is not so in case of present assessee. Hon ble apex Court in case of CIT vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra (supra) where prime dominant purpose was for advancement of object of public utility, it was held to be entitled to exemption. was held to be entitled to exemption. learned counsel for assessee, during argument raised plea that totality of circumstances has to be seen specially that all money goes with State Government and not in private hands, prices are fixed and assessee is not commercial organization and predominant activity of assessee is to develop infrastructure and contended that rule of consistency has to be seen for which reliance was placed upon decisions pronounced in Union of India & Ors. vs. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Anr. (2001) 168 CTR (SC) 3: (2001) 249 ITR 219 (SC), CIT vs. Shivsagar Estate (2002) 177 CTR (SC) 107: (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC), CIT vs. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (1981) 22 CTR (SC) 124: (1981) 130 ITR 186 (SC) and also decision in case of Dy. CIT vs. United Vanaspati Ltd. (2004) 83 TTJ (Chd)(TM) 201: (2004) 88 ITD 313 (Chd)(TM). We are of view that principles of res judicata do not apply to income-tax proceedings. However, we agree with learned counsel to extent that equally important is rule of consistency. We are of view that consistency has to be seen in totality of circumstances which depends upon facts of each case in light of primary object and real activities done by assessee, so these judicial pronouncements in our humble opinion are not going to help assessee. Hon ble High Court of Delhi in case of Daulat Ram Public Trust vs. CIT (2000) 161 CTR (Del) 331: (2000) 244 ITR 514 (Del) wherein on scrutiny of objects of assessee-trust, there was no defined dominant charitable purpose in trust deed to which said objects would serve as ancillary objects and which were meant to feed dominant purpose. Clause 21 of trust deed empowered chairman of trust to spend funds of trust for purchase of immovable property and since no part of income of trust was applied on any specific charitable purposes, exemption under s. 11 of Act was denied. Hon ble Court relied upon various judicial pronouncements which are available at p. 515 of said order and then came to particular conclusion. In view of these facts and judicial pronouncements, we are supposed to see predominant object of assessee. If all objects and activities actually carried out by assessee are analysed and kept in juxtaposition with aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of view that activities of assessee are more of commercial nature with profit-oriented intent, so no leniency should be shown to assessee. Department may also get support from decision of Hon ble Patna High Court as pronounced in case of Bihar State Forest Development Corporation vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 757 (Pat) where Government company was formed for promotion and development of forestry. assessee-corporation was permitted under memorandum of association to engage in commercial activities and there was no restriction on application of money, corporation was not held to be charitable trust and consequently not entitled to exemption. Similar is case in present appeal of assessee. During arguments, learned counsel for assessee invited our attention to case of Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority wherein registration was granted. learned CIT- Departmental Representative contended that in case of Market Committee, ownership remains with committee but in case of assessee it goes to individual and learned CIT was not satisfied with explanation of t h e assessee. Likewise in judicial pronouncements in New Life in Christ Evangelistic Association (NLC) vs. CIT (2001) 165 CTR (Mad) 446: (2000) 246 ITR 532 (Mad) as relied by assessee, it can be said that it is religious trust, so not applicable to present facts as assessee is auctioning plots on huge profits and even Hon ble Courts are intervening to enhance compensation on petitions filed by land owners. However, if argument of assessee is analysed on point of general public utility, still it can be said that commercial angle with profit motive is involved which has become predominant object of assessee. Even if this issue is analysed as contended by learned counsel for assessee that application of income is not criteria in light of decision of Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in case of Fifth Generation Education Society vs. CIT (1990) 87 CTR (All) 169: (1990) 185 ITR 634 (All), still we are of view that if objects and real situation is analysed, objects are not of charitable nature. Almost in every activity there is scent of commercialization/profit motive but in charitable institution no profit motive is involved and service is done mainly with intent of social/religious upliftment of masses in general. Admittedly, assessee is doing some activities like housing/infrastructure development and public is also benefited but for same assessee has already charged in form of hidden cost. Rather assessee is generating income, so no charity is involved. We agree with conclusion of learned CIT, as contended by learned CIT- Departmental Representative, that charitable institution provides services for charitable purposes free of cost and for no gain and are for benefit of public at large. As we have discussed in preceding para, assessee acquires land at nominal rates and after developing same, same land (is sold) on high profit which cannot be said to be charitable activity. Even just for argument sake, under present facts, if registration is granted, then every private colonizer will claim charity. facilities which are provided to plot holders are incidental to commercial activity carried out by PUDA and if certain facilities like parks, community center, school are provided is not only basic requirement, rather tool of attracting investors wherein hidden cost of these facilities is already included. In absence of these facilities, normally purchaser may not invest and prices may be less. In view of these facts and judicial pronouncements, we are of view that application of assessee has been rightly rejected by learned CIT. stand of learned CIT is upheld. Appeal of assessee is, therefore, dismissed. Before we part with, we record our appreciation for good argument advanced by both learned representatives, i.e., Shri R.K. Goyal, learned CIT- Departmental Representative and Shri Ajay Vohra, learned counsel for assessee. *** PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX