Ita/300/2015 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Gokula Education

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OK NOVEMBER 20160. PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ANT) THR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICK ARAVIND KUMAR| ITA NO.300/2015C/WITA NO.7/2016 IN ITA NO.300/2015:BETWEEN 1.COMMISSIONBR OF INCOMB TAX(EXEMPTIONS) C.R. BUILDING,(EXEMPTIONS) C.R. BUILDING, BANGALORE| 2.DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXE)CIRCLE 17(1), BANGALORE|CIRCLE 17(1), BANGALORE| _. APPKRHLLANTS (BY SRI E I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. GOKULA EDUCATION|FOUNDATION, M.s. RAMAIAH NAGAR, MSRIT POST,BANGALORE-560 054| ... RESPONDENT| (BY SRI A SHANKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS [TA IS FILED UNDER SEKC.260-A OF INCOMETAXACT1961,ARISINGOUTOF|ORDERDATED:30/12/2014.PASSBHBIN|ITANO.1091/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR.A2OQ01O0-2O0O11 PRAYING TO DBCIDEKE THK FOQUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONSOF LAW AS MAY BR FORMULATBD BY THR HON'BLE|COURTASDHRBME]RIT|ANT)SHTASIDETHE|APPELLATE ORDER DATED: 30/12/2014 PASSED BYTHBRITAT,‘ClBENCH,|BENGALURU,IN|APPEAL|PROCEEDINGS NO. ITA NO. 1091/BNG/2014 FOR,ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS|APPEAL; AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS|DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. IN ITA NO.7/2016: BETWERE 1.THR COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)|C R BUILDINGS,QUEENS ROAD,BANGALORE 560001 (EXEMPTIONS)|C R BUILDINGS,QUEENS ROAD,BANGALORE 560001 2.THR ASSISTANT DIRBCTOR OF INCOME TAX|(EXEMPTIONS)|(EXEMPTIONS)| CIRCLE 17 (2) BANGALORE| _.. APPBLLANTS (BY SRI SANMATHI E I, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S VIDYANIKETAN|EDUCATION AND CULTURAL TRUST,ULLAL CROSS ROAD,ULLAL UPANAGAR, BANGALORE-560056PAN: AAATV 1618F. _. RESPONDENT (BY SRI A SHANKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS [TA IS FILED UNDEBR SKC.260-A OF INCOMETAXACT1961,ARISINGOUTOF|ORDERDATED:23/06/2015—PASSBHBIN-ITA NO.1349/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR|2009-2010 PRAYING TO DBCIDEKE THRE FORBGOIQUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS|OF LAW AS MAY BR FORMULATRBRD BY THR HON'BLCOURT AS DEEMED FIT, TO SET ASIDE THE APPELLATEORDER DATED:23/06/2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'C')BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ITA|NOS. 1349/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR.2009-2010 AND GRANT SUCH OTHBR RELIEF AS)DEEMED FIT, INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THRSK APPKBALS COMING ON FOR HBARING THISDAY,JAYANT PATEL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER In both the appeals, the only question which arise.for consideration vide order dated 12.02.2016 in ITA!No.300/2015 is as under: “6Whether,1n thegivenfactsandcircumstances, the Hon’ble Tribunal is correctin law in holding that the assessee is eligible to|claimaccumulationundersection11(2)withoutappreciatingthefactthat|the.requirement of declaring the intention of the)assessee to accumulate/set apart certain)amount of income which could not be applied|in the same assessment year as provided)under section 11(2) is mandatory and the same)should be spelt out in clear terms in thestatutory Form No.10 filed along with the)return of income and the assessee is required|to invest or deposit such accumulated income|in the forms or modes specified in section|11(5)?" 2. It may be recorded that when ITA No.300/2015came to be considered for admission on 12.02.2016, the appeal was admitted only on the aforesaid question. —However, so far as ITA No.7/2016 is concerned, the saidappeal is so far not admitted. Hence, even if it is to beconsidered, the said appeal would require to beconsidered only on the above referred question. Hence,both the appeals are heard simultaneously. 3. We may also record that in ITA No.7/2016 sofar as question No.1 is concerned, the learned Counselfor the respondents-Revenue has fairly declared that thesaid question is covered against the Revenue as per thedecision dated 22.02.2016 oft this Court in ITANo.1/2013 and allied matters. However, he stated thatthe matter is carried before the Apex Court. 4. Under the above circumstances, we find that even otherwise also, as question No.1 is already covered 3. We may also record that in ITA No.7/2016 sofar as question No.1 is concerned, the learned Counselfor the respondents-Revenue has fairly declared that thesaid question is covered against the Revenue as per thedecision dated 22.02.2016 oft this Court in ITANo.1/2013 and allied matters. However, he stated thatthe matter is carried before the Apex Court. 4. Under the above circumstances, we find that even otherwise also, as question No.1 is already covered by the above referred decision of this Court dated22.02.2016 in ITA No.1/2013 and allied matters, suchquestion would no more arise for consideration in thepresent appeal. So far as question Nos.2 and 3 areconcerned, though formulated by the Revenue wouldstand covered1nthe.above.referredquestionformulated, resultantly both the appeals are to beconsidered only on the above referred question.| oS. We may record that in ITA No.300/2015, thebrief facts are that the respondent-assessee filed returnand claimed setting apart of the amount Rs.93,46,716/-.under Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, by filingForm No.10. In form No.10 the objects mentioned were“towards the objects of the Trust”. The Assessing Officerdisallowed the claim on the ground that specific objectand itemised purpose was not mentioned. The matterwas carried in appeal betore CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) during the course of hearing of the appeal,accepted the revised form No.10 wherein the purposementioned.Wa S“(a).towardsdevelopmentoT infrastructure for furtherance of education” and “(b)towards meeting of operating and administratingexpenses for providing education facilities”. The CIT(Appeals) found that since there were two divergentviews of the High Court of Kerala and Madras, whereasthe High Court of Delhi had taken the view thatparticular purpose is not required to be mentioned. Hefound that1nNabsence of any _ decisioof thejurisdictional High Court, the decision favourable to theassessee should be considered. Hence based on the!decision of the High Court of Delhi, he allowed theappeal and directed the Assessing Officer to verify theform and allow the claim. In the further appeal the Tribunal after considering the submissions observed at paragraph-6 which reads as under: “6. We have heard the rival contentions|and perused the order. In so far asdepreciation on fixed assets are concerned, theissue had come up before this Tribunal inassessee’s own case in ITA No. 600 &601/Bang/2012, where it was held as under; “7. Having heard both the parties andhaving considered the rival contentions, wefind that the basic issue is whether thedecision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in thecase of M/s Escorts Ltd., is applicable to thefacts of the case before us. We find that a.similar issues have arisen before this Tribunalin the case of Karnataka Reddy Jansangha aswell as in the case of Shri Adichunchanagiri|Shikshana Trust and this Tribunal afterconsidering various decisions on the issueincluding the decision of the Kerala High Courtin the case of Lessie Medical Institutions relied upon by the learned DR) has held that the)claim of depreciation of an asset, the entire)cost of which has been allowed by way of)application of income u/s 11(1) of the IT Act,|1961 is allowable. The relevant portion of the|Tribunal’s order is reproduced hereunder; “QO We have heard the rival submissions and.carefully perused the materials on record. The)income of the trust is required to be computed|under section 11 on commercial principles,|without reference to the heads of the income|specified under section 14 of the Act. In other)words, it is to be computed as per the book)income and not total income as defined in/section 2(45) of the Act. This proposition is)laid down by various judgments of Hon’ble|High Courts, namely, (i) CIT v Trustee of)Nizam’ssupplemental ReligiousEndowment Trust 127 ITR 378 (AP); (i) CIT v)RaOBahadurCalavalaCunnan.ChettyCharities 139 ITR 489 (Mad.) ®& (ili) CIT vEstate of V.L.Ethiraj 136 ITR 12 (Mad.). This) “QO We have heard the rival submissions and.carefully perused the materials on record. The)income of the trust is required to be computed|under section 11 on commercial principles,|without reference to the heads of the income|specified under section 14 of the Act. In other)words, it is to be computed as per the book)income and not total income as defined in/section 2(45) of the Act. This proposition is)laid down by various judgments of Hon’ble|High Courts, namely, (i) CIT v Trustee of)Nizam’ssupplemental ReligiousEndowment Trust 127 ITR 378 (AP); (i) CIT v)RaOBahadurCalavalaCunnan.ChettyCharities 139 ITR 489 (Mad.) ®& (ili) CIT vEstate of V.L.Ethiraj 136 ITR 12 (Mad.). This) position is also confirmed by the CBDT vide its|Circular No.o-P (LXX-6) dated 19[23]June 1968. |The income of the trust is to be computed on)the commercial basis 1.e. as per normal)accounting. The normal accounting principles|Clearly provide for deducting depreciation to)arrive at income. ‘The income so arrived at.(aiter deducting the depreciation) is to be)applied|forcharitablePUTPOSE. Capitalexpense is application of the income _ sdetermined. The application of the income so.determined cannot be stated to be a deduction|to arrive at the income. The depreciation is to.be deducted to determine the income under|section 11 of the Act and it is not ansapplication of income. Therefore, there is no)double deduction as claimed by the DIT(E) in)his order. Q IThe controversy, according to us, iS|squarely covered by the judgment of theHon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CITv Institute of Banking 264 ITR 110. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court was considering|the following question of law:- Whether,OTlthefactsand1nthecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was)right in law in directing the Assessing Officer|to allow depreciation on the assets the cost of|which has been fully allowed as application of|income u/s 11 in the past years? QO Following are the facts of the caseconsidered by the Hon’ble Bombay High)Court:- The assessee was a trust registered under the|Bombay Public Trust Act and section 12A of)the I T Act. The object of the assessee was)charitable in nature. The income ot the.assessee was exempt u/s 11 of the I T Act.The assessee had claimed depreciation which|was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the)eround that capital expenditure incurred)during the accounting year was allowed as a) deduction from the income of the assessee.Further, the assessee had claimed depreciation|on furniture and fixtures to the tune of.Rs.49,453/- at 10% of the written down value|which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer|on the ground that the said assets had been)received by the assessee on transfer from|National Institute of Bank Management. That)institute was a charitable trust. Its income§swas also exempt u/s 11 of the I T Act. The.Assessing Officer did not allow depreciation on|fixtures and furniture on the ground that full|deduction had been allowed in respect ofcapital cost of furniture and fixtures and if the depreciation was allowed, as claimed by the)assessee, it would result in double deduction.The assessee carried the matter in appeal and)the appellate authority decided the matter in)favour of assessee. The decision of theappellate authority was confirmed by the)Tribunal. 9.3 On reference, the Bombay High Court held|“that the Tribunal was right in law in directing|the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on|the assets, the cost of which had been fully|allowed as application of income under section|11 in the past years”. 9.3 On reference, the Bombay High Court held|“that the Tribunal was right in law in directing|the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on|the assets, the cost of which had been fully|allowed as application of income under section|11 in the past years”. 9.4 The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in)the case of CIT v Society of the Sisters of)ot.Anne 146 ITR 26 had categorically held that|the amount of depreciation debited to theaccounts of a charitable institution is to be|deducted to arrive at the available income for.the purpose of application to charitable and)religious purposes. The decision of the Hon’ble|jurisdictional High Court has been followed by|the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v Raipur Pallottine Society 180 ITR|o/79 and by the Hon’ble Madras High Court inthe case ot Gonvindu Naicker Estate v'Assistant Director of Income Tax and Another.248 ITR 368. Further, in the case of CIT v)Sheth Manilal Ranchhoddas Vishram Bhavan| Trust 198 IITR 598, it was held by the Hon’ble|Gujarat High Court that depreciation should|be allowed while computing the income under|section 11(i)(a) of the Act. 9.5 The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court)relied on by The Director of Income-tax|(Exemptions) is distinguishable. The issue)before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was that)whether both depreciation under section 32)and capital expenditure on scientific research|under section 35(1)(iv) can be claimed as)deduction. In the case before the Hon’ble.Supreme Court, both deductions were under|the head ‘business income’ whereas in the case|oT|acharitabletrust, depreciation1S.adeduction to arrive at income and capital)expenditure is application of such income. The)aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Courtin the case of Escorts Limited (supra) cannot)be applied to determine taxable income for a)trust, as the provisions to determine taxable|income of the trust are totally different and) normal provisions for computing income under|the five heads cannot be applied. Though the)Cochin Bench oft the Tribunal is rendered onidentical issue, we would prefer to follow the)judgments of various High Courts, (cited)Supra) in preference to the order of the Cochin|BenchTribunal.Therefore,WEhold.the.assessee is eligible for claiming depreciation|and it is to be allowed as deduction in order to}arrive at the income of the assessee-trust. It is.ordered accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the)assessee is allowed. To the aforesaid order, one of us 1.e AM isthe signatory. As the facts and circumstances|in the case before us are exactly similar to the facts ot the case before the Co-ordinate.Benches of the Tribunal, respectfully following|the said decisions the assessee’s appeals are.allowed and the orders u/s 263 of the)DIT(Exemp.) are vacated. TS|As for the second issue, it is necessary toreproduce section 11(2) of the Act and Rule 17)which are on accumulation;| “Where(eighty five) percent of the Incomereferred to in clause(a) or clause(b) of sub-section (1) read with the Explanation to that)sub-section is not applied, or is not deemed to)have been applied, to charitable or religious|purposes in India during the previous year but)is accumulated or set apart, either in whole or|in part, for application to such purposes in)India, such income so accumulated or set.apart shall not be included in the total income|of the previous year of the person in receipt of|the income provided the following conditions|are complied with, namely a) such person specifies, by notice in writing|given to the AO in the prescribed manner, the|PULTPOSC{Orwhichtheincome.1Sbeingaccumulated or set apart and the period for| which the income is to be accumulated or set|apart, which shall in no case exceed ten years. b) The money so accumulated or set apart is|invested or deposited in the forms or modes|specified in sub-section(9s)”. a) such person specifies, by notice in writing|given to the AO in the prescribed manner, the|PULTPOSC{Orwhichtheincome.1Sbeingaccumulated or set apart and the period for| which the income is to be accumulated or set|apart, which shall in no case exceed ten years. b) The money so accumulated or set apart is|invested or deposited in the forms or modes|specified in sub-section(9s)”. Provided that in computing the period of tenyears referred to in clause (a), the period)during which the income could not be applied|for the purpose for which it is so accumulated|or set apart, due to an order or injunction of|any court, shall be excluded; Provided further that in respect of any.income accumulated or set apart on or after)the l[82]day of April, 2001, the provisions of thissub-section shall have effect as if for the words ten years at both the places where they occur,|the words ‘five years’ had been substituted”. Rule 17... [The notice to be given to the AO orthe prescribed authority under sub-section(2)| of section 11 or under the said provision as)applicable under clause(2) or clause(23) of)section 10 shall b in Form No.10 and shall be.delivered before the expiry of the time allowed|under sub-section (1) of section 139, for)furnishing the return of income’. The requirement in the Act are (1) specification|by notice in writing to the AO(ii) such)specification should be in prescribed manner|and (111) and such specification should give the|purpose of accumulation. The time limit has)been mentioned in the Rules alone. ‘The|delegated power of rule making given in section|11(2) is only for prescribing the manner of)filing the application. The power does not)include fixation of time limits. Delegated)legislative powers are circumscribed by the)statutedelegating|such.PpOwWerandtransgression thereof can render the rules)beyond the scope of such delegation. Hence,|we cannot fault the learned CIT(A) taking)cognizance of the revised Form No.10A filed by| the assessee. In any case, as observed bylearned CIT(A), Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharath Kalyan Pratisthan as well as)Bharat Krishak Samaj(supra) had held that)details of purpose of accumulation was not a.requirement that can be read into section|11(2). Revenue has not been able to bring)before us any decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional|High Court on this issue, and _ thereforeassessee has to be given the benefit of the)decision in its favour, in preference to thedecisions going against it.” 6. The Tribunal ultimately did not interfere withtheOrderoT|theCIT.(Appeals).Underthecircumstances, the present appeal before this Court. 7. Whereas in ITA No.7/2016, the facts are thatthe assessee-Trust.SseTapartthe amountoT Rs.75,00,000/- under Section 11(2) of the Act by filingForm No.10 and mentioned the purpose as under: “To improve/develop the buildings of the trust|and conduct educational/charitable activities.” 8. The Assessing Officer found that there is noSpecific activity mentioned and the language used isgeneral and therefore he disallowed the claim. Thematter was carried in appeal before CIT (Appeals) andhe concurred with the view of the Assessing Officer andallowed the appeal in part on other aspect which is nottouching to the question involved. The Income TaxAppellate Tribunal in further appeal has more or lessrecorded the same reasoning and it relied upon itsearlier decision in case ot.DDIT(E) Vs. Gokula Education Foundationin ITA No.1091/Bang/2014—dated 30.12.2014 (which is subject matter of [TANo.300/2015|beingsimultaneouslyheardandconsidered) and the Tribunal thereafter found that theissue could be said as covered by its earlier decision, wherein the reliance was placed upon the decision ofDelhi High Court in case ofDirector of Income-Tax(Exemption) Vs. Daulat Ram Education Societyreported at|(2005) 278 ITR 260 (Delhi)and thereforeultimately allowed the appeal of the assessee by theimpugned order. Under the circumstances, the presentappeal before this Court. _ Education Foundationin ITA No.1091/Bang/2014—dated 30.12.2014 (which is subject matter of [TANo.300/2015|beingsimultaneouslyheardandconsidered) and the Tribunal thereafter found that theissue could be said as covered by its earlier decision, wherein the reliance was placed upon the decision ofDelhi High Court in case ofDirector of Income-Tax(Exemption) Vs. Daulat Ram Education Societyreported at|(2005) 278 ITR 260 (Delhi)and thereforeultimately allowed the appeal of the assessee by theimpugned order. Under the circumstances, the presentappeal before this Court. _ 9. We have heard Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learnedCounsel appearing for the appellants-revenue in boththe appealsandMr.A.Shankar,learnedCounse!]appearing for the respondent-assessee in both theappeals. 10. The learned Counsel for the appellants-Revenue mainly contended that unless there is aspecific purpose mentioned in Form No.10, the languagefor general purpose’ would not permit the assessee toclaim the benefit under Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act. He further submitted that in ITA No.300/2015 ‘toovague’ and ‘too general purpose’ was mentioned, but theCIT (Appeals) during the course of hearing accepted therevised Form No.10 which was not permissible. 11. He submitted that if the revised Form No.10 istaken out, then the purpose mentioned for setting apartfor Claiming benefit under Section 11(2) of the Act is toovague and too general and therefore rightly disallowedby the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal ought not tohave maintained the benefit claimed by the assesseeunder Section 11(2) of the Act. 12. Whereas Mr.A.Shankar, learned Counselappearing for the respondents-assessee contended thatas such, as per the decision of the Delhi High Court inthe case ofDaulat Ram Education Society(Supra), no)specific purpose is required to be mentioned so long as_the purpose/s are within the objects of the Trust. He also contended that even otherwise also, the appealbefore the CIT (Appeals) is a continuous proceeding andtherefore, it cannot be said that CIT (Appeals) could notpermit revised Form No.10 during the course of hearingof the appeal. He submitted that the view taken in boththe appeals by the Tribunal is correct and the appeals ofthe Revenue may be dismissed. 13. We may at the outset mention that sincesection 11(2) as well as Rule 17 of the Income Tax Act,are already reproduced in the above referred portion ofthe order of the Tribunal, we need not repeat the sameso as not to burden the judgment. However, it needs tobe emphasized that the issue centre rounds forcompliance of Section 11(2) (a)of the Act only which.provides for specification of the purpose for which theincome is being accumulated or set apart. Since thereis no controversy for the period for which the amount is set apart, we find it appropriate not to make any furtherobservations in this regard. The only question thereforemay arise is as to “whether the specification of thepurpose in the present case could be said as sufficientcompliance for claiming the benefit under Section 11(2)(a) of the Act or not’. 14.|AsWE|have|recordedearlier|1n ITANo.300/2015 initially there was a broad purpose as“towards objects of the Trust”. Thereafter, it is in therevised Form No.10, it has been specified under subhead (a) and (b) which speaks for the ‘development ofinfrastructure forfurtheranceoT|education’and‘towards meeting of operating and administratingexpenses for providing education facilities’. Whereas inITANo./7/2016theobjectsspecified1S“tOimprove/develop the buildings of the trust and toconducteducational/charitableactivities”.Be|it. recorded that it is not the case of the Revenue that anyof the purposes specified in Form No.10 are not fallingas the object of the Trust. But the only case of theRevenue is that the purpose should be specificallymentioned, though it may be one of the objects of theTrust and it may be more than one of the objects of theTrust. recorded that it is not the case of the Revenue that anyof the purposes specified in Form No.10 are not fallingas the object of the Trust. But the only case of theRevenue is that the purpose should be specificallymentioned, though it may be one of the objects of theTrust and it may be more than one of the objects of theTrust. 15. It is true that in case ofDaulat RamsEducation Society|(supra), Delhi High Court observedthat so long as one or more purposes are specified bythe assessee find place in the objects for which thesociety has been incorporated and so long as the saidpurpose/s are charitable in character, the benefitadmissible under section 11 must flow to the assessee. _If the matter is considered as it is, in view of thedecision of the High Court of Delhi in case ofDaulatRam Education Society(Supra), we do find that the| question since is already covered by the decision of HighCourt of Delhi, it may not arise for consideration. 16. However, the learned Counsel appearing forthe revenue by relying upon the decision of CalcuttaHigh Court in case of|Director of Income Tax(Exemption) Vs. Trustees of Singhania CharitableTrust‘reported at(1993) 199 ITR 0819contended thatas per the view taken by Calcutta High Court unless aspecific purpose is mentioned, the benefit under Section11(2) of the Act, would not be available. 17. At this stage we may refer to the decision ofthis Court in case oftDirector of Income-tax,|Exemptions, Bangalore Vs. Envisiton> reported at(2015) 232 Taxman 164/58, wherein the decision otfCalcutta High Court was also relied upon by theRevenue and this Court at paragraph-10 had observedthus: 10. In the present case, we find that the revenuedoes not dispute the fact that all the threepurposes specified by the Assessee in Form 10are for achieving the objects of the trust, andthat the purposes as well as objects, are bothCharitable. Merely because more than onepurpose has been specified and details aboutthe plan of such expenditure has not beeniven, the same would not, in our view, be 9sufficient to deny the benefit u/s 11(2) of the Actto the Assessee. As long as the objects of thetrust are charitable in character and as long asthe purpose or purposes mentioned in Form 10are for achieving the objects of the trust, merelybecause of non-furnishing of the details, as howthe said amount is proposed to be spent infuture, the assessee cannot be denied theexemption as is admissible under sub-section(2) of Section 11 of the I.T.Act, 1961. The aforesaid shows that as per the view taken by thisCourt as long as the objects of the trust are charitable in character and as long as the purpose or purposesmentioned in Form No.10 are for achieving the objectsof the Trust, merely because the details are notfurnished, the assesssee cannot be denied benefit of theexemption under Section 11(2) of the Act.| 18. In our view, the aforesaid view taken by theCo-ordinate Bench of this Court is concurring with theview taken by the Delhi High Court in case ofDaulatRam Education Society(supra). In any case, the|aforesaid view taken by this Court in case ofEnvisions(Supra) is binding on us and hence we do not find thatthe decision of the Calcutta High Court in case ofTrustees of Singhanta Charitable Trust(Supra), upon which reliance has been placed by the learnedCounsel for the Revenue would be of any help to theRevenue. 19. The learned Counsel for the appellants-Revenue did contend that if the revised Form No.10 wasfound to be not acceptable, then in ITA No.300/2015.the purpose is too general and too vague. Hence, theassessee would not be entitled to claim benefit under|section 11(2) of the Act. In furtherance to his)submission, he relied upon the decision of the ApexCourt in case otCommuisstoner of Income Tax Vs.Nagpur Hotel Owners’ Associationreported at(2001)9247 ITR O201and contended that in the said decision,the Apex Court found that if Form No.10 was not filedby the assessee, the benefit could not be claimed norcould be granted under Section 11(2) of the Act. 19. The learned Counsel for the appellants-Revenue did contend that if the revised Form No.10 wasfound to be not acceptable, then in ITA No.300/2015.the purpose is too general and too vague. Hence, theassessee would not be entitled to claim benefit under|section 11(2) of the Act. In furtherance to his)submission, he relied upon the decision of the ApexCourt in case otCommuisstoner of Income Tax Vs.Nagpur Hotel Owners’ Associationreported at(2001)9247 ITR O201and contended that in the said decision,the Apex Court found that if Form No.10 was not filedby the assessee, the benefit could not be claimed norcould be granted under Section 11(2) of the Act. 20. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for theassessee contended that the appeal is a continuousproceeding and hence, if the Commissioner (Appeals)has permitted the assessee to file Revised Form No.10,. such could not be said as prohibited by law. He alsosubmitted that the aforesaid decision of the Apex Courtin the case ofNagpur Hotel Owners’ Association(supra)/ came to be considered by a Division Bench ofthe High Court of Gujarat in the case ofCommissionerof Income Tax -versus- Mayur Foundation_ reportedAT|(2005) 274 ITR 562-and the High Court of Gujarat,aiter considering the aforesaid decision of the ApexCourt, found that additional ground can be entertainedwhen the appeal is pending even before the Tribunal.Hence, he submitted that it is not a case where no FormNo.10 whatsoever was filed. 21.In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nagpur Hotel Owners’ Association (supra),the factswere that the assessee did not file Form No.10 at all,which is not the fact situation in the present case. Thefacts situation in the present case are that Form No.10 was already filed and the Revised Form No.10 filed forsub-head of the purposes falling under the main head ofthe objects of the Trust, was accepted by theCommissioner (Appeals) in the proceedings of theappeal. If the matter is considered in light of the abovereferred decision of the High Court of Gujarat in thecase ofMayur Foundationand is considered that the.appeal is a continuous proceeding, it cannot be saidthat the CIT (Appeals) had no authority to acceptRevised Form No.10 nor can it be said that Revised|Form No.10 could not at all be considered for allowingthe claim made under Section 11(2) of the Act. 22. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the|Tribunal was right in allowing the claim of the assesseeunder Section 11(2) of the Act. Hence, the question isanswered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee|against the Revenue. © �)���48;725/279!�/1�</24?@4?4/>4�=1;7A�04�?4:;<?4A�21�04�E5A4�21�234�<E6;D/4A�1?A4?�65884A�09�234��?<0;/57����4/>4!�234�5664578�5?4�A<8E<884A�� ��#��� �������$%�&�������'(�)�� ������$%�&��������'(�)��