Director Of Income Tax ... vs Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust
2004 Latest Caselaw 60 Del

JUDGMENT

1. An interesting question is raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the issue of claiming benefits under Section 11 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). Under Rule 17 of the IT Rules, 1962, a person is required to file Form No. 10 giving specific details for accumulation. The learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) contends that mere listing of the manifold objects of the trusts would not suffice. Each purpose of accumulation and the amount set apart therefore must be specified before the benefit under Section 11 could be claimed.

2. In the instant case, however, we find that the Tribunal gave great importance to the following factual aspects as indicated in para 34 of its order:

"34. A reading of the aforesaid reveals the following :

(i) The assessed had been allowed the benefit of Section 11 in other assessment years though the purposes mentioned in Form No. 10 were the same as during the year under consideration.

(ii)The accumulation had been allowed in other assessment years, there being no change in the facts as also the aims and objects of the trust;

(iii) The accumulated funds had been utilised during the previous year under consideration for paying an Installment of Rs. 59 lakhs and odd to PUDA for purchasing land at Mohali with the intention of starting an educational institution; and

(iv) In subsequent assessment years i.e., 1998-99 and 1999-2000, the assessed-trust had paid Installments of Rs. 1.57 crores to PUDA and it had been accepted as an educational and charitable trust and the request for accumulation allowed."

3. It is also observed by the Tribunal that the CIT(A) has not given importance to the aforesaid factual aspects. In para 31, it is observed as under:

"At the outset, we would refer to certain facts which have been stated and reiterated by the learned counsel for the assessed and which have not been rebutted by the learned Departmental Representative. The assessed-trust was founded in 1924, and has been enjoying exemption vis-a-vis the relevant provisions of the IT Act pertaining to charitable trusts. Its request for accumulation has been accepted in the preceding and succeeding assessment years and this is the solitary year in which the claims came to be rejected. Further, the objects for accumulation set out in Form No. 10 in the preceding assessment years, in the succeeding assessment years and in the year under appeal were absolutely identical."

4. Thus, in order to maintain consistency, in our view, we are not required to entertain this appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed.