ORDER
Shri A. Krishnamurthy Judicial Member
1. This is an appeal by the department in the case of the assessee-trust, M. Ct. Chidambaram Chettiar Foundation. the appeal relates to the assessment year 1973-74 for which the previous year ended on 31-12-1972. this Foundation Trust is undisputedly a trust established for charitable purposes entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act. 1961 (“the Act”). It applied for accumulation of income of the relevant assessment year and subsequent three years till the assessment year 1976-77 in the prescribed from and it is not in dispute that it has fulfilled all the necessary conditions in regard to the notice including investment of the amount in securities approved by the Government, etc. the ITO sought to charge the assessee’s total income of the year at Rs. 88,120 on the ground that even though the assessee had filed from No. 10 seeking permission to accumulate income the permission cannot be given because the author-trusts, namely, M. Ct. Muthiah Chettiar Family Trust, M. Ct. Trust and S. RM. M. Ct. M. Thereupon Trust, themselves have accumulated their income over a period of ten years and were permitted to do so and the grant of further time in the case of the assessee-trust would amount to extending the time limit of the years already granted for accumulation for the identical objects in the case of the author-trusts. The AAC in appeal against the assessment accepted the assessee’s claim and held that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 11 irrespective of what happened in the case of the three trusts who were the authors of the assessee-trust because the assessee-trust is an independent entity different from these author-trusts and had satisfied the necessary conditions to entitle it to accumulate income for the relevant year and the permission of the ITO is not a pure-condition for granting the exemption. In the further appeal before us, the department disputes the finding of the AAC.
2. We have heard the parties and do not find any merit in the department’s objection. In the case of the three author-trust the question came up before us in the appeal preferred by them against the orders of the Commissioner for the Assessment year 1972-73 as to whether the Commissioner is justified in directing inclusion of the accumulated income for the maximum period allowed to it under the Act on account of the fact that subsequent to the said period it had made over the accumulated income to the assessee-trust without utilising it in establishing, acquiring or maintaining educational institutions hospitaks, etc. (IT Appeal Nos. 2237, 2238 and 2239 (Mds.) of 1976-77) [published elsewhere in this issue.] We have separately disposed of those appeal upholding the claim of the assessees in that case that the making over of the fund representing the accumulated income to the assessee-trust amounted to application to charity and, therefore, Commissioner was not justified indirecting inclusion of the amounts of income of several years which accumulation had been allowed in its hands.
3. In the case of the present assessee for the assessment year 1973-74, the income of the assessee is Rs. 88,120 and it is this income which it has sought to accumulate. No material has been brought to out notice which will show that the identical income for which accumulation was allowed in the hands of the author-trust was further sought to be assimilated by the assessee-trust. But even if it is so, we must uphold the order of the AAC that the assessee being an independent trust and having fulfilled the requirements for accumulation as per the notice given by it and being otherwise entitled to exemption under section 11 cannot be denied the exemption on the ground that the author-trust have been allowed to accumulate their income for the past years. No provision of law has been pointed out to use which would support such a claim of the department that in such circumstances the assessee would lose its claim for exemption. we, therefore, reject the objection of the department.
4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.