9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicable to the trust and consequently the trust is not entitled to the benefit of section 11. 3. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in contending that the first proviso to section 13 is applicable to the appellant." 2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The assessee is a Public Charitable Trust duly registered under Bombay Public Trust Act and under section 16 of the Income-tax Act. The Trust was incorporated on 11-8-1960, copy of certificate of incorporation was filed before the lower authorities. The return was filed for the relevant assessment year under consideration showing deficit of Rs. 5,723 after claiming permissible deduction under section 11. During the year the assessee-trust has incurred expenditure of Rs. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... blic is interested, it is sufficient if the well-defined section of public benefits by the object. The expression "object of general public utility" as appearing in section 2(15), is not restricted to objects beneficial to the whole mankind. An object beneficial to a section of the public is an object of general public utility. As per my considered view, to serve a charitable purpose, it is not necessary that the object should be to benefit the whole of mankind or even all persons living in a particular country or province. It is sufficient if the intention is to benefit a section of the public as distinguished from specified individuals. Furthermore, an object which is beneficial to a section of the public is an object of general public ut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cepted in view of the verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 wherein it was held that where additional ground raises a purely legal plea which goes to the very root of the matter, the same deserves to be admitted. Whether provisions of section 13(1)(b) are applicable to the assessee is purely a legal issue. As the entire facts relating to incorporation of the assessee-trust were already on record, I do not find any merit in the action of the CIT for declining to accept the legal ground and to adjudicate the same. From the assessment order itself, I found that on page No. 2, it has been clearly mentioned that the said trust was incorporated in SY 2016. This fact was also ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
