This appeal arises out of order of CIT, Hissar, passed on 18th March, 2004, under s. 12AA of IT Act, 1961, by which registration sought by assessee was refused. assessee has taken up 9 grounds of appeal, 10th is residuary in nature, which does not require any decision from us. grounds are factual and argumentative in nature and, therefore, grounds are not in accordance with Tribunal Rules. However, learned counsel of assessee pointed out that ground Nos. 1 and 9 are substantive grounds, determination of which will dispose of appeal. Ground No. 1 is against refusal of registration under s. 12AA and ground No. 9 is against condonation of delay in filing application for registration. In order, it is mentioned that assessee applied for its registration under s. 12AA of Act on 1st Oct., 2003. It is further mentioned that assessee was established under and governed by provisions of Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1982 (hereinafter called that Act ). object of that c t was to create certain bodies, generally termed as "Town Improvement Trusts", empowered to deal with development of towns and connected matters. powers given to Improvement Trusts were similar to powers vested in Municipal Committees. Such trusts could transact only such business as was authorized under that Act. Generally such trusts are constituted of seven trustees including chairman, which are appointed by State Government. They hold office during pleasure of Government. They receive such salary or remuneration as sanctioned by Government. provisions of that Act were also made applicable in State of Haryana. Thus, trusts are in nature of "local authority". It is also mentioned that income of such trusts was exempted under cl. (20A) of s. 10 of Act. However, this clause was omitted by Finance Act, 2002, w.e.f. 1st April, 2003. omission of this clause prompted assessee to file application for its registration with sole motive of avoiding incidence of tax. learned CIT also referred to paras 13.1 and 13.2 of Explanatory Notes on Provisions relating to direct taxes, in which it was pointed out that income of housing boards and other statutory authorities, set up for dealing with or satisfying needs of housing accommodation or for purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages, was hitherto exempt under aforesaid clause. clause was deleted by Finance Act, 2002. In view of aforesaid legislative history, conclusion of learned CIT was that sole motive for filing application was to avoid tax. Coming to registration, it was pointed out that assessee is neither trust nor society. In this connection, provision contained in s. 3 of Indian Trusts Act, 1882, was referred to, according to which trust is obligation annexed to ownership of property, and arising out of confidence reposed in and accepted by owner or declared and accepted by him for benefit of another, or of another and owner. On basis of this definition, it was pointed out that assessee is not trust, as it does not arise out of any obligation annexed to ownership of property. assessee is also not society as it has not been registered under provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860. It was his view that exemption under s. 11 can be given only to trust or institution. Since assessee was neither trust nor institution (It appears that word institution was read by him to be synonymous with word society), it was not entitled to registration under s. 12AA of Act. He also referred to provision of s. 2(15) of Act which provides for inclusive definition of term "charitable purpose". He was of view that unless trust or society is set up for charitable purposes only, it cannot claim registration under s. 12AA of Act. definition includes within its ambit relief of poor, education, medical relief, and advancement of any other object of general public utility. It was argued before him that assessee promotes schemes which are in nature of public utilities and, therefore, its purposes fall within meaning of charitable purpose. view of learned CIT was that improvement trusts discharge functions of State Government under provisions of statute. Therefore, such functions cannot be termed as charitable purposes. He was also of view that whole of issue has to be examined from wider perspective and even if some expenditure has been incurred in isolated manner, then, main purpose of assessee cannot be termed as charitable purpose. It was pointed out by him in this connection that main functions of assessee are acquisition of land, sale of plots of land, providing basic amenities such as roads, light, water, sewerage, etc. provisions of such facilities are necessary for sale of plots of land for realizing higher prices and, therefore, provisions of such facilities are merely incidental to main purpose of purchase and sale of land. He also referred to accounts of assessee for financial year 2002- 03, in which receipts of Rs. 39,74,493 were shown. As against aforesaid receipts, assessee had incurred expenditure of Rs. 3,53,276 only for alleged public purposes. expenditure was lower than 85 per cent of receipts. Therefore, his conclusion was that primary function of assessee did not constitute charitable purpose. Coming to issue of condonation of delay, it was represented before him that assessee was unaware of its tax liability arising on account of omission of s. 10(20A) w.e.f. 1st April, 2003. It received letter from Secretary to Government of Haryana that aforesaid provisions have been deleted from Act. Therefore, matter was discussed with local tax consultant and after such discussion it was decided to file application for its registration under Act with view to seek exemption under s. 11. In this connection, learned CIT pointed out that being statutory authority, assessee had sufficient legal advice. Prima facie, only reason for filing application was to seek exemption from s. 11. It was pointed out that in law, assessee could seek its registration from first day of financial year in which its application was made, provided that other conditions were satisfied. Since other conditions were not satisfied, request for condonation of delay was rejected. application for registration was also dismissed. Aggrieved by this order, assessee is in appeal before us. learned counsel of assessee pointed out that assessee was creation of State statute. Its income was hitherto exempt from taxation under s. 10(20A). When assessee came to know that aforesaid provision has been omitted from statute, it sought necessary legal advise and applied for registration by filing Form No. 10A on 1st Oct., 2003. application was complete in all respects. prayer was also made to condone delay and grant registration w.e.f. 1st April, 2002. Our attention was drawn towards Explanatory Notes on Provisions relating to direct taxes and it was pointed out that learned CIT referred only t o paras 13.1 and 13.2 in his order on p. 3. However, he did not refer to para 13.3, reproduced in (2002) 258 ITR (St) 24. This para points out that donation made to housing authorities, referred to in cl. (20A) of s. 10, are eligible for 50 per cent deduction in hands of donor. This clause has been deleted. denial of exemption under s. 80G may result in drawing up of donations. To continue incentive to donors, s. 80G has been amended so as to provide that 50 per cent of sum paid by assessee to authority constituted in India by or under any law enacted either for purpose of dealing with and satisfying needs for housing accommodation or for purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages, or both, shall be deducted from total income of such assessees. His case was that if, in spite of omission of s. 10(20A), donors cases can be covered under s. 80G, assessee s case can also be covered under other provision for seeking exemption, such as ss. 11, 12, etc. learned counsel referred to pp. 6, 7 and 8 of paper book, which is nothing but scheme of Chapter IV of that Act, which identifies various types of schemes and circumstances in which schemes could be taken up by assessee. For sake of completeness of this order, same are reproduced below: "Sec. 23 provides for street schemes and deferred street schemes; Sec. 24 provides for development and expansion schemes; Sec. 25 provides for housing accommodation scheme; Sec. 26 provides for re-housing accommodation scheme; Sec. 27 provides for re-housing of displaced resident house owners; Sec. 28 enables trust to adopt schemes for: Acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Acquisition by other modes, Relation, letting on hire, lease, sale, exchange or disposal of land, Demolition of building which are unfit and are causing objection of light and air, Relaying and redistribution of sites, Alteration of streets, Provision for open space and enlargement or alteration of existing open spaces, Reservation of land for production of fruit, vegetables, fuel, fodder, etc. for residents of local area, Draining, water supply and lighting of streets, Provision of system of drains and sewers for improvement of ill-drained and in-sanitary of localities, All acts to be done intended to promote health of residents of area comprised in scheme including conservation and preservation from injury or pollution of rivers and other sources and means of water supply, Demolition of existing buildings and their erection and re-erection, Advancing funds for re-erection of building as per scheme, Provision of facilities for communication, Other matters which State Government deems necessary relating to scheme. Sec. 29 prescribes street alignment on power of Municipal Committee; Sec. 30 prescribes to set back or forward buildings adjacent to street alignment; Sec. 31 prescribes prohibition of building beyond street alignment; Section 32 prescribes acquisition of property affected by deferred scheme; Sec. 33 provides for initiation of scheme upon office representation by Municipal Committee or otherwise; Sec. 34 provides for consideration of such official representation by Municipal Committee or otherwise; Sec. 35 provides for matters to be considered when framing improvement scheme; Sec. 36 provides for preparation, publication and transmission of notice as to improvement schemes and supply of documents to applicants and for receiving of objections thereto within period prescribed therefor in notification; Sec. 37 deals with transmission to trust of representation by committee as to improvement scheme; Sec. 38 provides for issuance of notice of proposed acquisition of land to owner/occupier of any immovable property which is proposed to be acquired and for filing of objections by them within period of sixty days from service of notice; Sec. 39 provides furnishing information available in municipal record; Sec. 40 provides (i) for consideration of objections raised under ss. 36, 37 and 38 in respect of any scheme and then either to abandon scheme or apply to State Government to sanction it in its original form or in modified form; (ii) for furnishing to State Government along with its application with certain material to enable Government to satisfy itself that scheme had been duly framed by trust; and (iii) for publishing of notice for two consecutive weeks in Official Gazette or in newspaper or papers to effect that scheme had been submitted to Government for sanction; Sec. 41 enables Government either to sanction scheme with or without modifications or reject it; Sub-s. (1) of s. 42 provides for notification of its sanction of given scheme; sub-s. (2) of s. 42 provides that notification under sub-s. (1) of s. 42 in respect of any scheme shall be conclusive evidence that scheme had been duly framed and sanctioned; Sec. 43 provides for alteration of scheme after sanction; Sec. 44 provides for inclusion of different localities in combined scheme." case of assessee was that all its objects constituted charitable purposes, being objects of general public utility, covered by sub-s. (15) of s. 2 of Act. He also referred to para 8 of order of learned CIT, in which it was mentioned that there is no doubt that improvement trusts are created for development purposes in specified areas. It was also pointed out that in spite of admitting that purpose of assessee was development of specified areas, yet, he came to conclusion that such purpose does not come within purview of "charitable purpose" under s. 2(15) of Act for reason that such functions are performed by State Government. He also referred to p. 26 of paper book, being questionnaire issued by CIT to assessee on 27th Oct., 2003. Written submissions were filed in response to this questionnaire and it was pointed out that nature of activities for improvement and expansion of towns were laid down in ss. 22 to 24 of that Act, gist of which was enclosed along with application filed in Form No. 10A. For sake of completeness, Chapter IV of Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1982 (as applicable to Haryana) was also placed in paper book on pp. 36 and 37. assessee had also filed letter dt. 12th March, 2004 before learned CIT in which clarification was furnished in respect of matters raised in questionnaire. Coming to legal argument, on interpretation of sub-s. (15) of s. 2 of Act, learned counsel relied on decision of Hon ble Tribunal, Ahmedabad "C" Bench in case of Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn. vs. Asstt. CIT (2006) 102 TTJ (Ahd) 928: (2006) 10 SOT 23 (Ahd). That assessee was created under Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962, for purpose o f rapid and orderly development of industries in industrial area and industrial estates established by State Government. It made application for its registration under s. 12A of Act. Hon ble Tribunal pointed out that purpose of securing rapid and orderly establishment and organization of industries in industrial area and industrial estate in State of Gujarat is object of general public utility and, therefore, assessee was entitled to registration under s. 12A of Act. That assessee s income was also exempt under s. 10(20A) of Act, which was omitted w.e.f. 1st April, 2003. It applied for registration on 14th May, 2003, seeking registration w.e.f. 1st April, 2002. Hon ble Tribunal pointed out that amendment in law necessitated assessee to file application for its registration and in such circumstances there was no justification for CIT to refuse condonation of delay. case of learned counsel was that facts of that case and facts of this case are in pari materia. assessee also undertook activities which are in nature of public utility and its application was also necessitated because of change in statute. Therefore, it was argued that its application should have been allowed by registering it. reliance was also placed on decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn. vs. CIT (1997) 142 CTR (SC) 181: (1997) 227 ITR 414 (SC). Hon ble Court pointed out that word "development" in s. 10(20A) of Act should be interpreted in wide sense. If that is done, there is no warrant to exclude development programmes relating to any industry from purview of word "development" in said clause. word in that section does not indicate in any manner that legislature contemplated that development should be confined to non-industrial activities. development of place can be accelerated through number of schemes and establishments of industries is one mode of development of area. case of learned counsel was that assessee was entrusted with t h e task of development of Hansi town under its jurisdiction. word "development" should be interpreted in wider sense and, therefore, objects in pursuance of development should be held to be object of general public utility. learned counsel referred to p. 28 of paper book, which contains 10 items of expenditure incurred on operation of fountain, electricity bill of items of expenditure incurred on operation of fountain, electricity bill of fountain, repair of water pipe line, electrical goods for markets, repairs of green belt, repairs of fountain, etc. It was pointed out that assessee had incurred expenditure in pursuance of object of advancing public utility. details of expenditure are also available on p. 32 of paper book. Therefore, his case was that assessee had been carrying on activities of general public utility. He also relied on decision of Hon ble Tribunal, Delhi "A" Bench in case of Market Committee vs. CIT (2005) 94 TTJ (Del) 692: (2005) 3 SOT 98 (Del). That case dealt with registration of agricultural market committee established under statute, enjoying tax exemption under s. 10(20), which was withdrawn by Finance Act, 2002, w.e.f. 1st April, 2003. It was pointed out that Union Finance Minister informed that such assessees could claim exemption under s. 11 on fulfilment of other conditions, consequent to which application was filed under s. 12A of Act. objection of CIT was that market committee established under statute cannot be called as charitable institution. Hon ble Tribunal pointed out that there was no force in objection. It was further pointed out that withdrawal of exemption under s. 10(20) by amendment does not preclude assessee from seeking exemption under other sections, such as ss. 11, 12, etc., provided conditions laid down in ss. 11 to 13 are satisfied. It was also pointed out that fact that market committee collects fees, fines, and their officers are public servants, does not detract from coming to conclusion that market committees are charitable institutions if otherwise their objects and activities are charitable in nature. It was also pointed out that dominant object of such committees was to save agriculturists from exploitation by middlemen and to provide them with better storage and transportation facilities for food grains. These are objects of general public utility. It was also pointed out that registration by itself does not lead to exemption of whole income and it was always open to authorities to examine claim under s. 11 subject to other conditions prescribed in ss. 12 to 13. learned counsel pointed out that facts of his case are in pari materia to facts in case of Marketing Committee (supra), except that its income was hitherto exempt under s. 10(20A) and not under s. 10(20), as in case of Market Committee (supra). Therefore, it was agitated that learned CIT ought to have registered assessee. learned CIT had given finding that assessee was neither trust nor institution. In connection with his finding regarding existence of trust, it was pointed out that there was no obligation annexed to ownership of property, and arising out of confidence etc., existed in this case. It was also held that assessee has not been registered as society. In this connection, learned counsel relied on decision of Hon ble Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, in case of Malli Ram Charitable Trust vs. CIT (2003) 132 TAXMAN 221 (Asr)(Mag), in which it was pointed out that application for registration has to be made in Form No. 10A by person who is in receipt of income of trust, which was done by that assessee. It was also not in dispute that documents evidencing creation of trust were filed with application. CIT had no doubts about objects of trust. His only objection was that trust deed was not registered either with Registrar of Societies or with Registrar of Documents. Hon ble Tribunal held that in view of clear provisions of law contained in s. 12A of Act and r. 17A of IT Rules, 1962, that cannot be ground for refusal of registration. It was pointed out by learned counsel that instrument of creation was filed, which contained objects of trust and, therefore, it could not have been held by learned CIT that assessee ought to have been registered either with Registrar of Societies or Registrar of Documents. He also referred to decision in case of Market Committee (supra) to argue that what was required to be seen was that whether conditions prescribed regarding registration are fulfilled or not. learned counsel also distinguished between what could be termed as activity of profit and activity for profit, and in this connection he relied on decision of Hon ble Tribunal, Pune Bench in case of Goa, Daman & Diu Industrial Development Corpn. vs. ITO (1986) 25 TTJ (Pune) 168: (1986) 15 ITD 447 (Pune). aforesaid assessee was constituted for development of Goa, Daman and Diu. question was whether in view of fact that assessee was company, activities of assessee might be activities of profit but were not activities for profit and whether as activities had no profit motive, activities of assessee were for charitable purpose if it fulfilled conditions for exemption under s. 11? Hon ble Tribunal held that if there was no motive to earn profit and activities of assessee were charitable in nature, its income could be exempted under s. 11 of Act. Coming to issue of delay, it was pointed out that assessee had filed application on 1st Oct., 2003. If its application had been successful, it was entitled to get registration w.e.f. 1st April, 2003. However, it required registration w.e.f. 1st April, 2002. Thus, there was delay of one year only. delay occurred because of lack of knowledge on part of assessee that provisions of s. 10(20A) were deleted and, therefore, it was required to be registered with CIT for claiming exemption under s. 11. As against aforesaid, learned Departmental Representative pointed out that income of assessee was earlier exempt under cl. (20A) of s. 10, as it constituted authority under law, as contemplated under that clause. local authority is also "person" under s. 2(31) of Act. Therefore, assessee is person under IT Act. However, only trust or institution can be registered under s. 12AA of Act. Therefore, question is whether assessee is trust or institution? It was stressed that s. 12AA does not use words "any person" or "local authority". Sec. 11(1)(a) also uses words "income derived from property held under trust". While, it was stated by him that word "trust" should be given wide meaning, yet, on facts assessee neither constitutes trust nor institution. When his attention was drawn to fact that word "institution" has not been used in s. 11(1)(a), it was pointed out that word "trust" may be interpreted liberally, but since assessee is discharging Governmental functions, it constituted neither trust nor institution. learned counsel has made reference to speech of Finance Minister to effect that upon withdrawal of exemption under s. 10(20A), assessees covered under that clause can seek exemption under s. 11 by getting them registered under s. 12AA. In this connection, learned Departmental Representative pointed out that it was also mentioned by him that exemption will be available if prescribed conditions are satisfied. In this case, prescribed conditions were not satisfied, as pointed out earlier. He referred to CIT s letter dt. 27th Oct., 2003, in which certain details were called for, which included copy of constitution of trust, copy of registration with Registrar of Societies/Trust, and copy of trust deed. He referred to clarification submitted by assessee and it was pointed out that no case was made out by it that it was trust or institution. learned CIT had also required assessee to prove inter alia existence of trust/institution and genuineness of its activities vide letter dt. 23rd Jan, 2004. In reply to this letter also, assessee did not make out any case that it was either trust or institution. assessee had merely placed reliance on Gazette Notification under which assessee was created, established and incorporated by Government of Haryana in year 1969. Thus, its existence as trust or institution was not established. learned Departmental Representative referred to activities of assessee, actually undertaken by it and enumerated on pp. 46 to 48 of paper book. It was his case that there was no clause which specified item-wise expenditure to be incurred by assessee and in this connection, wide discretionary powers were given to management committee. Therefore, his case was that conditions of s. 11(1)(a) were not satisfied. He also referred to pp. 49 to 62 of paper book, which is Gazette Notification, framing rules for functioning of assessee. It was his view that cls. 3, 4, 5 and 6 permitted assessee to carry on business in immovable properties by way of sale, allotment, auction, lease, tender or otherwise. These activities involved profit element, profit motive and were not charitable in nature. While referred to accounts for financial year 2002-03, it was pointed out that only small amount of Rs. 3,65,500 was expended on development activities out of total expenditure of Rs. 39,79,493. On basis of aforesaid, his case was that activities of assessee were not primarily charitable in nature. Coming to legal issue, he pointed out that finding of Hon ble Tribunal in case of Market Committee (supra) was that that assessee was actually carrying on charitable activities, which is not case here. Therefore, ratio of that judgment is not applicable on facts of this case. Coming to case of Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn. (supra), it was pointed out that that assessee was incorporated under Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962, and its main purpose was to develop industrial areas and industrial estates in State of Gujarat. Thus, dominant object was one of development, which is not case here. Therefore, it was argued that ratio of that case is also not applicable to facts of instant case. Referring to case of Malli Ram Charitable Trust (supra), it was pointed out that in that case trust deed was not registered, while in instant case there is no trust deed. Therefore, facts are materially different and in view thereof, ratio of that decision is also not applicable to facts of this case. In rejoinder, learned counsel pointed out that various schemes floated or announced by assessee were not part of instrument of its creation. Therefore, what has to be seen at time of registration is objects of assessee. It was his case that modalities for achieving objects and reservations made in such modalities do not lead to conclusion that objects of assessee are not charitable in nature. In fact, such issues cannot be examined at stage of registration, wherein only issue to be examined is whether objects are charitable in nature. It was also to be seen whether various formalities have been complied with. issue of exemption under s. 11(1)(a) will arise only at time of assessment, in which only such part of income, which have been applied towards charitable purposes, will be exempted. We have considered facts of case and rival submissions. It may be pointed out that conditions for registration of trusts, etc. and procedure for registration thereof are covered by ss. 12A and 12AA, respectively. Sec. 12A uses words "any trust or institution". It is not case of assessee that it was established as trust under s. 3 of Indian Trust Act, 1882. Its case is that it is institution and in this connection, learned counsel had referred to decision in cases of Market Committee (supra) and Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn. (supra). Market Committee was local authority under s. 10(20), which constituted person under s. 2(31) of Act. That person was granted registration by Tribunal, Delhi Bench "A" Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn s. case (supra) was entity registered under Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962, which was considered to be person, being Industrial Development Act, 1962, which was considered to be person, being artificial juridical person under s. 2(31) of Act. assessee is also artificial juridical person created under Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1982. Therefore, we do not find any difficulty in holding that assessee is person. term "institution" has not been defined in Act, but sub-s. (26) of s. 2 of Act regarding definition of term "Indian companies" takes within its ambit corporation established by Central, State or Provincial Act. Even if reliance is not placed upon this sub-section, it is clear that assessee is person under cl. (vii) of sub-s. (31) of s. 2. As pointed out earlier, word "institution" has not been defined in Act. We have perused Concise Oxford English Dictionary which defines aforesaid word as under: (i) organization founded for religious, educational, or social purpose; (ii) organization providing residential care for people with special needs; (iii) official organization with important role in country; (iv) well-established and familiar person or thing; (v) action of instituting. assessee was created by Act of Government of Haryana under Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1982, whose provisions have been extended to State of Haryana also. purpose is to improve infrastructure in cities, towns and villages, falling within its jurisdiction. Similar bodies have been created for other cities, towns, etc. Therefore, it can be very well said that it is organization founded for social purpose and, therefore, it constitutes institution. We have already seen that market committees, performing work o f development activities of market to help agriculturists to sell their agricultural produce without exploitation by middleman, have been granted registration. We may point out here that word "institution" has wide ambit as seen from its meaning in Oxford Dictionary, than word "person" used in Act. Therefore, we do not see any reason as to why assessee, performing useful social purpose, should not be termed as institution, registerable under s. 12AA of Act. Therefore, we are of view that assessee does constitute institution under s. 12A of Act. Sec. 12A provides that provisions of s. 11 and s. 12 shall not apply to income of any trust or institution unless it has made application for its registration in prescribed form and in prescribed manner. assessee has made application to CIT in prescribed form and in prescribed manner. Therefore, apart from delay in filing application, conditions of s. 12A(a) are satisfied. As mentioned earlier, procedure for registration has been prescribed in s. 12AA of Act. It is provided that CIT may call for such documents or information as he thinks necessary in order to satisfy himself about genuineness of activities and after satisfying himself about objects and genuineness of activities, he shall pass order in writing registering trust or institution. On careful study of this section, it will be seen that CIT has to examine two things before registering trust or institution. These are: (a) Objects of trust or institution; and (b) Genuineness of its activities. We have already enumerated objects of trust in para 3.2 of this order. It was placed before learned CIT that as per preamble of Punjab Town Improvement Act, dominant object of applicant is for improvement and for expansion of Hansi town, and preamble of that Act was placed on record of CIT. Gist of s. 23 to s. 44 were also placed before him. These sections empower assessee to provide for street schemes and deferred street schemes; development and expansion schemes; housing accommodation scheme; re-housing accommodation scheme and re-housing of displaced resident house owners, etc. With view to implement aforesaid schemes, assessee was enabled to acquire land by any mode, demolished buildings which are unfit and are causing obstruction of air and light; redistribution of cites; alteration of streets; provision for open spaces, etc.; reservation of land for production of fruits, vegetables, fuel, fodder, etc.; drainage, water supply and lighting of streets; provision for sewers; promoting health of residents in prescribed area; demolition of existing buildings and their erection and re- erection; advancing funds for re-erection of buildings as per scheme; promoting communication facilities and other matters which State Government may consider necessary relating to schemes. On combined perusal of these sections, it will be clear that basic intent and purpose of constituting assessee was to develop town of Hansi for securing better amenities and better living for people of town. To our mind, all these activities constitute charitable purposes, as understood under s. 2(15) of Act, under residuary clause of "object of general public utility". Therefore, we are also of view that there is nothing in objects of assessee which could come in way of its registration. Coming to activities, both learned Departmental Representative and learned counsel have referred to receipt and payment account for financial year 2002-03. It is seen that assessee has earned substantial income on sale of land. Income has also been earned from banks by way of interest and charges recovered from various persons. total income amounted to Rs. 39,79,493. large portion of income, amounting to Rs. 13,07,167, has been expended on salaries of employees. Various expenses have been incurred which can be termed as office expenses. Expenses amounting to Rs. 1,47,191, debited under head "Contingencies" have also been incurred, which are in nature of office expenses. Development expenses amounting to Rs. 3,65,500 have also been incurred. case of learned counsel was that all expenses were incurred while carrying out activities as per objects for which assessee was created. As against aforesaid, case of learned Departmental Representative was that development expenses were incurred only to extent of Rs. 3,65,500 and major expenses were incurred on establishment, etc. Therefore, his case was that substantial expenses could not be said to be application of income for charitable purposes under s. 11(1)(a). We have considered this matter also. We find that incurring of expenditure on establishment does not lead to any inference that activities of assessee are not charitable. It is another matter to say that major portion of expenditure was incurred not in connection with objects of assessee, but on establishment. According to us, what is to be seen under this connection is whether assessee was carrying on activities in accordance with objects enumerated in instrument of its creation or funds of assessee were diverted for totally different purposes. We find that assessee has incurred expenditure in pursuance of objects and certain other expenses have also been incurred on establishment. There is nothing in activities of assessee which could be said to be non- genuine in sense of being non-existent or completely contrary to its objects. It may be clarified here that we are not giving finding that expenses incurred otherwise than on development schemes amount to application of income under s. 11(1)(a). That is issue to be decided in assessment. What we have to consider is whether activities of assessee are genuine, in sense that it is carrying on activities purported to be carried out by it. If issue is examined in this light, it will be clear that assessee has been carrying out development activities in town of Hansi. Therefore, we do not find any reason to come to any adverse conclusion in this matter also. learned Departmental Representative had pointed out that there was no provision in instrument of creation of assessee, which apportioned expenditure on various activities to be carried out by assessee. In view thereof, his case was that assessee is not entitled to its registration under Act. We have considered this matter also. We may point out that all objects of assessee are charitable in nature and, therefore, it is not case where objects are partly charitable in nature and partly non-charitable in nature. In such situation, there is no requirement for specifying ratio of expenditure to be incurred on various activities. It may also be pointed out that s. 11(1)(b) deals with partly charitable trusts or institutions, under which only that portion of income is exempted which is applied for charitable purposes. However, this section applies to trusts created on or before commencement of Act. As all objects of assessee are charitable in nature, this section is not applicable. There is nothing otherwise in Act, which makes provision for allocation of expenses to various objects. Therefore, we are of view that this argument does not support Revenue. Having considered all facts, we are of view that facts of this case are covered by ratio of decisions in cases of Market Committee (supra), Malli Ram Charitable Trust (supra) and Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn. (supra). Therefore, we are of view that assessee is entitled to its registration. Thus, ground No. 1 of appeal is allowed. Coming to issue of condonation of delay, case of assessee was Coming to issue of condonation of delay, case of assessee was that same occurred due to lack of knowledge of fiscal laws on part of assessee. However, when omission of s. 10(20A) was brought to its notice b y Collector, it took urgent steps by seeking legal advise and filed application on 1st Oct., 2003. Similar issue had come up for adjudication before Hon ble Tribunal in case of Market Committee (supra). It was held that circumstances, as enumerated above, should not come in way of granting retrospective registration. We are of view that delay was on account of bona fide reason beyond knowledge of assessee. Therefore, it is held that assessee ought to have been granted registration w.e.f. 1st April, 2002. Thus, ground No. 9 is also allowed. In result, appeal is allowed as indicated above. *** IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX