1. This is appeal filed by assessee against order of CIT(A) dated 8-2-2006 for assessment year 2002-03. Following three effective grounds have been taken by assessee:- ' That ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in contending that trust is not entitled to benefit of section 11 on expenditure of Rs. 4,81,221 so incurred by it on providing earthquake relief. 2. That ld. CIT(A) has erred in contending that provisions of section 13(1)(b) of Act are applicable to trust and consequently trust is not entitled to benefit of section 11. 3. That ld. CIT(A) has erred in contending that first proviso to section 13 is applicable to appellant.' 2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. assessee is Public Charitable Trust duly registered under Bombay Public Trust Act and under section 16 of Income-tax Act. Trust was incorporated on 11-8- 1960, copy of certificate of incorporation was filed before lower authorities. T h e return was filed for relevant assessment year under consideration showing deficit of Rs. 5,723 after claiming permissible deduction under section 11. During year assessee-trust has incurred expenditure of Rs. 4,82,221 towards earthquake relief. Assessing Officer declined to allow expenses on plea that since charitable nature of activities of Trust was limited to Visha Shrimali Jains which was small community, assessee-Trust had contravened provisions of section 11A. Accordingly, benefit of section 11 was denied and expenditure incurred on earthquake relief was not allowed by invoking provisions of section 13(1)(b) of Income-tax Act. 3. By impugned order, CIT(A) confirmed action of Assessing Officer by observing that assessee-trust has applied fund for benefit of religious community, therefore, covered by provisions of section 13(1)(b) of Income-tax Act. contention raised before CIT(A) to effect that assessee-trust was created before commencement of Income-tax Act 1961, hence, provisions of section 13(1)(b) are not applicable to assessee's case, was declined to be entertained on plea that this plea was not before Assessing Officer. Hence, this plea remained to be verified. He therefore held that section 13 is applicable in assessee's case in respect of expenditure of Rs. 4,81,221. 4. Aggrieved by order of lower authorities, assessee is now before us. 5. I have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through orders of authorities below. As per my considered view, object of public utility need not be object in which whole of public is interested, it is sufficient if well-defined section of public benefits by object. expression 'object of general public utility' as appearing in section 2(15), is not restricted to objects beneficial to whole mankind. object beneficial to section of public is object of general public utility. As per my considered view, to serve charitable purpose, it is not necessary that object should be to benefit whole of mankind or even all persons living in particular country or province. It is sufficient if intention is to benefit section of public as distinguished from specified individuals. Furthermore, object which is beneficial to section of public is object of general public utility. In order to serve charitable purpose, it is not necessary that job should be to benefit whole of mankind or all persons in Country or State. It will be more than sufficient if intention is to benefit section of public as distinguished from specified individual. section of community sought to be benefited must b e sufficiently definite and/or identifiable by some common quality of public or impersonal nature. personal element or personal relationship which takes group out of section of community for charitable purpose is of nature which is to be found in cases where nexus between them is their personal relationship to single propositus or to several propositi. I, therefore, do not find any merit in conclusion of lower authorities to effect that since assessee-trust is created for benefit of particular community being Visha Shrimali Jain Samaj which is small community, benefit of section 11 should be denied. 6. With regard to non-application of provisions of section 13(1)(b), I found that assessee-trust was incorporated on 1-9-1960 prior to coming into force of Income-tax Act, 1961. provisions of section 13(1)(b) are therefore not applicable to assessee-trust. Documentary evidence with regard to incorporation of assessee-trust on 11-8-1960, was very much before Assessing Officer. legal issue even though raised for first time before CIT(A) is liable to be accepted in view of verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 wherein it was held that where additional ground raises purely legal plea which goes to very root of matter, same deserves to be admitted. Whether provisions of section 13(1)(b) are applicable to assessee is purely legal issue. As entire facts relating to incorporation of assessee-trust were already on record, I do not find any merit in action of CIT for declining to accept legal ground and to adjudicate same. From assessment order itself, I found that on page No. 2, it has been clearly mentioned that said trust was incorporated in SY 2016. This fact was also mentioned in copy of Memorandum and Articles of Trust submitted to Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer has not controverted this fact which is already on record. I therefore do not find any merit in action of lower authorities for declining exemption claimed under section 11, by invoking provisions of section 13(1)(b) of Income-tax Act. 7. Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of CIT v. Shri Maheshwari Agrawal Marwari Panchayat [1982] 136 ITR 556 held that Trust established before commencement of1961 Act for benefit of particular religious community, bar under section 13(1)(b) would not be applicable, and trust will be entitled to exemption in respect of its entire income. 8. In view of above, all four grounds of assessee's appeal are allowed. 9. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed. *** RAJKOT VISHA SHRIMALI JAIN SAMAJ v. INCOME TAX OFFICER