9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aubhagya Aggarwal for the respondent. JUDGMENT The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated January 31, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Branch "F", in I. T. A. Nos. 944 and 945/D/2002 relevant to the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. 2. The assessee is registered with the Revenue under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as a charitable organisation. The objects of the assessee have been reproduced in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and they are as follows : "(i) Development and improvement of environmental preservation technology. (ii) Exchange of technical communication and information between the Japanese institutions engaged in the similar works and the Indian institut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is view and that is how the Revenue is before us under section 260A of the Act. 5. That the trust is a charitable trust is not in dispute because the Assessing Officer has recorded that he had considered the activities of the trust as charitable activities covered by section 2(15) of the Act. 6. As regards the first issue considered by the Assessing Officer, namely, that the assessee had not specified in Form No. 10 the purpose for which the accumulation was sought to be made, our attention has been drawn to a decision of this court in CIT v. Hotel and Restaurant Association [2003] 261 ITR 190. In that case, a similar argument was raised by the learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue to the effect that the assessee had f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee (though not physically), it could not have utilised the amount for the purpose for which it was accumulated. The assessee could not have been expected to violate the law and utilise the amount disregarding a prohibitory order. 10. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal did not err in the view taken by it and, therefore, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 11. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the actual utilisation of the amount was not in issue but the Tribunal did not address the first issue, namely, the specific purpose for which accumulation was intended. We have dealt with both the issues above and find no substantial question of law arises for our cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
