This appeal by department relates to assessment year 1980-81. T h e assessee is trust know as Shri Lakhamsey Napoo Smarak Sadharan Fund. assessee is assessed through its trustees. assessee-trust is charitable in nature. trust was created by deed dated 24-3-1943. settlor had settled sum of Rs. 12,000 on trust together with immovable property known as Napoo Hall. This Napoo Hall was described as trust premises in clause 3(a) of trust deed. In clause, it was mentioned that income, interest and profits of trust premises and of sum of Rs. 12,000 being portion of trust funds would be used for maintenance and upkeep of trust premises including said Lakhamsey Napoo Hall and for ordinary and extraordinary repairs to same and for improvement and betterment of said trust premises. There is proviso to clause 3(a) in which it is mentioned as to what would happen if income of said Hall was insufficent for above purpose. It is mentioned in said proviso that if said income, interest, profits and rents were insufficient for any of purposes mentioned in clause 3(a), trustees would have power to use corpus of said sum of Rs. 12,000 or use income, interest and profits of sum of Rs. 38,000 which was portion of trust fund. This sum of Rs. 38,000 had been settled separately on trust in clause 3 (c) of trust deed. Another sum which was settled on trust was Rs. 10,000 which has been referred to in clause 3 (b) of trust deed. said clause laid down that income, interest and profits of said sum of Rs. 10,000 would be used for upkeep and maintenance of educational institutions called Lakhamsey Napoo Pathashala and Bai Velbai Kanyashala. There was proviso in clause 3(b) which laid down as to what would happen if income, interest and profits be insufficient for meeting expenses of said educational institutions. It is laid down therein that trustees would have power to use corpus of said sum of Rs. 10,000 or to use income, interest and profits of said sum of Rs. 38,000 (which has been settled separately in clause 3(c) of trust deed, and which has been referred to above). Under clause 3(c) sum of Rs. 38,000 is separately settled and it is laid down therein that interest, income and profits of said sum of Rs. 38,000 including corpus thereof would, in first instance, be applied for meeting deficit which may from time to time arise or accrue in respect of administration of trustees mentioned in clauses 3(a) and 3(b) of trust deed and that surplus of income, interest and profits of said sum of Rs. 38,000 as may be left should be used for - (i) advancement and spread of education including providing scholarships or loans to students or grant to schools; (ii) relief and help to poor and needy persons; (iii) medical relief including donations to hospitals and nursing homes; (iv) relief to famine stricken people and animals; (v) affording protection to cows and animals; (vi) promotion of religion, religious education, etc.; (vii) such other religious or charitable objects as trustees might in their discretion think fit. 2. It would thus be seen that under scheme laid down in trust deed three different sums have been settled for three different purposes. 3. It is not disputed that trustees had incurred expenditure of Rs. 56,819 for purposes referred to in clause 3(c) of trust deed described above. Income-tax Officer declined to accept said expenditure as application of income towards declared purposes of trust. According to him income of trust was mainly from Napoo Hall. This income as per trust deed is to be spent on maintainance or upkeep of said premises and for ordinary and extraordinary repairs and for improvement and betterment of said premises under clause 3(a) of trust deed. Consequently, they could not be used for charitable purposes mentioned in clause 3(c) of trust deed. Since above expenditure is for charitable purposes mentioned in clause 3(c) of trust deed, said expenditure, according to Income-tax Officer, could not be said to be proper application of income form Napoo Hall. Income-tax Officer, therefore, declined to extend benefit under section 11 to amount of Rs. 56,819 on ground that said expenditure though for charitable purposes mentioned in clause 3(c) of trust deed was in violation of directions in trust deed to effect that same should be spent for purposes mentioned in clause 3(a) of trust deed. 4. assessee filed appeal before Commissioner of Income - tax (Appeals). Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) drew pointed attention to clause 5 of trust deed which was as follows: "And it is hereby further agreed and declared that trustees shall be at liberty to receive contributions and donations either in money or in immovable property or in kind form any member or members of public on such terms n d conditions as donors thereof and Trustees for purpose of investments to amalgamate such contributions or donations either with corpus or income, profits and interest of trust premises or Trust." He also referred to clause 8 of trust deed which provided for amalgamation of trust funds and which was as follows: "And it is hereby further agreed and declared that notwithstanding anything to contrary contained in these presents or in Trust Act or any other law for time being in force applicable to Trust properties, Trustees shall be entitled to amalgamate into one all Trust Fund allocated for various purposes." Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that reading all clauses together, there was no prohibition in trust deed for utilisation of income from Hall for charitable purposes other than for maintenance n d upkeep and for improvement and betterment of trust premises as provided in clause 3(a). Consequently, it could not be said that expenditure of Rs. 56,819 had not been incurred by assessee in accordance with provisions of trust deed. He, therefore, deleted disallowance of Rs. 56,819 and directed Income-tax Officer to allow deduction of said amount in computing total income. department is now in appeal before us and ground raised is that learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had erred in holding that amount of Rs. 56,819 spent by assessee was application of income by assessee and consequently erred in deleting addition thereof. 5. submission of Shri Tej Prakash, learned Departmental Representative before us, was that under clause 3(a) of trust deed, it was clearly laid down that income from Hall would be spent for maintenance and upkeep of premises and for ordinary and extraordinary repairs to same and for improvement and betterment of said premises. Consequently, income from Hall could not be used for charitable purposes mentioned in clauses 3(c) of deed. amount that could be spent on charitable purposes mentioned clause 3(c) of deed, was amount representing income from sum of Rs. 38,000 which had been settled separately by settlor. submission of Shri Dastur, learned representative for assessee, on other hand, is that since inthe trust deed there is provision for amalgamation of trust fund, income could be spent on that income from Hall need not be spent only for maintenance of Hall. In alternative, he submitted that income from Hall as such, was only Rs. 12,255 and expenses on Hall were Rs. 11,537, while other income was from several articles given on hire at time of giving Hall on hire and that said other income should not be deemed to be income from Hall to which restrictions of spending on repairs etc. under clause 3(a) could apply. According to him income arising from giving other article on hire could be spent on any of charitable purposes mentioned in clause 3(c) of trust deed. Consequently, entire expenditure involved in present case which had been spent on purposes mentioned in clause 3(c) of trust deed was allowable. 6. After considering submissions made before us, we find that under clause 5 of trust deed, trustees have been given powers to receive contributions and donations and for purpose of investments, trustees have been empowered to amalgamate such contributions or donations either with corpus or income, profit and interests of trust premises or trust. Further, under clause 8, trustees have been empowered to amalgamate into one of trust funds allocated for various purposes. We do not agree with contention of learned Departmental Representative that these clauses do not empower trustees to spend income from Hall and income from various articles given on hire on charitable purposes mentioned in income from various articles given on hire on charitable purposes mentioned in clause 3(c) of trust deed. power to amalgamate profits and interests of trust premises with other income for purposes of investment carries with it power to use amalgamate fund for charitable purposes mentioned in trust deed. It could not have been intention of settlor that surplus arising form giving of Hall on hire should not be used for charitable purposes at all. Of course, said income is in first instance to be used for upkeep and improvement of said premises. However, if there is surplus, there is no prohibition against same being used for charitable purposes mentioned in clause 3(c) of trust deed. We have to read entire trust deed as whole. After considering all relevant clauses, we agree with learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that there is no prohibition in t h e trust deed in regard to utilisation of income from Hall for charitable purposes mentioned in clauses 3(c) of trust deed and that there is no intention that said income should be used only for maintenance, upkeep and for improvement and butternut of trust premises. intention is that after spending for maintenance and upkeep and for improvement and betterment if any surplus remains that could be utilised for charitable purposes mentioned in clause 3(c) of trust deed. We, accordingly confirm order of Commissioner of Inocme-tax (Appelas) directing Income-tax Officer to allow deduction of said amount in computing total income. In view of this finding, we do not think it necessary to consider alternate submission made on behalf of assessee which would require investigation into facts which has not been done by authorities below. We reject ground No. 2 raised in memo of appeal against allowance of Rs. 56,810. 7. only other ground is regarding sum of Rs. 42,450 which has been added by Income-tax Officer but deleted by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). This amount of Rs. 42,450 represents corpus donations given by those persons, who had taken Hall on hire and who had paid separately hire charges. According to Income-tax Officer, corpus donations made by those persons were not voluntary corpus donations as such, but were donations made on account of use of Hall. 8. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has not agreed with this view. We have perused assessment order and also order of Commissiioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We have considered submissions of parties. We find ourselves in agreement with view expressed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It is to be seen that Hall was given to 547 different parties out of which 163 parties gave donations to corpus, 230 parties gave general donations which were shown as income of trust and 154 parties did not give any donation at all. From these figures, it is clear that those parties which gave corpus donations really intended to give said donations towards corpus and that there was no intention to give those amounts as service charges as assumed by Income-tax Officer. There was absolutely no material before Income-tax Officer to make such assumption. As already stated, 230 parties have given general donations which were shown as income of trust. If trustees wanted to treat all donations as general donations, they would not have shown 230 donations as general donations. AS many as 154 parties, who used Hall did not give any donation at all. surrounding circumstances indicate that corpus donations were voluntary donations towards corpus and amount given by those donors did not represent quid pro quo for use of Hall. 9. Income-tax Officer has examined 3 instances of corpus donations in support of his conclusion. In first instance party had paid Rs. 500 as advance on 15-2-1979. Bill for user of premises was Rs. 333.10. corpus donation made was of Rs. 200. If intention of this party had been to pay additional amount for use of Hall, this party would have paid balance amount remaining after deduction of Rs. 333.10 from Rs. 500. He would not have paid sum of Rs. 200. other two instances need not be discussed. From these instances, no inference that corpus donations were not really towards corpus could be drawn. We find that there is no nexus between corpus donations and services rendered by use of Hall. We, therefore, confirm order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this point. 10. appeal is dismissed. *** SIXTH INCOME TAX OFFICER v. SHRI LAKHAMSEY NAPOO SMARAK SADHARAN FUND