TMI Blog1979 (5) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 764 Unspent Balance Rs. 93,908 The reasons given by him for not exemption the aforesaid income from tax are as under: " The amount of Rs. 93,908 is taxable as the form No. 10 was filed belatedly and also it is not known whether the accumulation has been deposited in banks as fixed deposits. In the absence of these details the unspent balance becomes taxable." 3. The assessee appealed to the AAC who stated that the deposits could be made in any account with a bank and there was no need for the deposits to be made as fixed deposits and inasmuch as the assessee had put the amounts in a bank account that condition under s. 11(2) (b) (ii) was satisfied. Regarding the submission of Form No. 10, he stated that according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decisions of the Madras High Court in MCT Muthaiah Chettier Family Trust vs. ITO (1) (a decision of Ramaprasada Rao, J. as His Lordship then was sitting as a single Judge) which has been upheld by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in 102 ITR 138. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We will first deal with the point as to whether the application in Form No. 10 is in time or not. r.17 reads as under. "17. Notice for accumulation of income by charitable or religious trusts. The notice to be given to the ITO under sub-s. (2) of s. 11 shall be in Form No. 10 and shall be delivered to him before the expiry of the time allowed under sub-s. (1), or sub-s. (2), of s. 139 whether fixed originally or on extension, for furnishi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are competent to state the law and give a finding thereon. Following the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court which was relied on by the Madras High Court it is clear that prescribing of a time within which the application in Form No. 10 is to be made is in conflict with the provisions of s. 11(2). To the extent the Rule is in conflict with the section, that portion of the Rule has to be ignored. We are, therefore, to hold that the prescription of time limit in the Rule has to be ignored. This being the position, we cannot hold that Form No.10 though filed on 28th Nov., 1974 was out of time because under the Rule in the interpretation we have placed, there cannot be any time limit prescribed. Regarding the deposit in the bank the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
