CM No. 11169 of 2005:

1. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned and the application disposed of.

I. T. A. No. 644 0/2005 :

2. The only question which the Revenue proposes to raise for the determination of this Court is whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in granting exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that the assessed had not mentioned any specific purpose for accumulation of its income in Form No. 10 submitted by it.

3. Mr. Jolly learned Counsel for the Revenue argued that the purposes specified in Form No. 10 were general and did not Therefore constitute a sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 11(2) of the. He urged that in order to be eligible for the grant of the benefit under Section 11, the assessed was required to specify in clear terms the purpose for which the income was being accumulated by it. This requirement, according to him, was not satisfied by the assessed in the present case as the purposes mentioned were of a general nature.

4. The Tribunal has placed reliance upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Hotel and Restaurant Association : [2003]261ITR190(Delhi) . In that case also the assessed had accumulated the unspent amount for being spent on more than one purposes specified by it. The question for consideration was whether it was necessary for the assessed to make a specific mention of any purpose or purposes to enable it to accumulate the income. The court held that Section 11(2) of thedid not prohibit plurality of purposes. The court also held that the purposes which the assessed had specified formed part of its objects and were charitable in nature. The position is no different in the instant case. Here too, out of 29 purposes/ objects stipulated in the memorandum of association, the assessed has specified eight purposes in Form No. 10 for which it was accumulating the unspent income while claiming benefit under Section 11. It is not the case of the Revenue that any of these eight purposes are not charitable or that the same do not figure in the memorandum of association. In the circumstances, just because more than one purpose have been specified and just because details about the plans which the assessed has for spending on such purposes are not given may not be sufficient to deny the exemption admissible to it under Section 11. So long as one or more of the purposes specified by the assessed find place in the objects for which the society has been incorporated and so long as the said purpose are charitable in character, the benefit admissible under Section 11 must flow to the assessed.

5. In the light of what is stated above, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.