JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by S. C. Dharmadhikari J.-This appeal of Revenue challenges order passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated November 14, 2012. assessment year in question is 2007-08. Tribunal dealt with appeal of Revenue, cross-objections of assessee and appeal by assessee. All these were directed against common order passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on February 14, 2011. Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Revenue in support of this appeal, submits that this appeal raises substantial questions of law. They are formulated at pages 4 and 5 of paper-book. They read as under: "A. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, hon'ble Tribunal was justified in granting exemption under section 10(33) and section 10(38) to tune of Rs. 25.96 lakhs and Rs. 3.21 lakhs, respectively, when this income forms part of income from property held under trust and, therefore, can only be claimed to be exempt under section 11, if applied for charity and not under section 10 of Act? B. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that entire foundation of section 11 is based on premise that income is otherwise chargeable to tax, which is not supported by provisions of Act? C. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, hon'ble Tribunal was justified in granting exemption under section 10, when same amounts to allowance of exemption within exemption whereby dividend income and long-term capital gain derived from property held under trust but not applied for purposes of trust is held to be exempt? D. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, hon'ble Tribunal was justified in giving relief to assessee in respect of Rs. 30 lakhs which was accumulated and set aside under section 11(2) of Act but not utilised for specified purpose within stipulated period of five years? E. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, hon'ble Tribunal was justified in giving relief to assessee in respect of Rs. 30 lakhs which was accumulated and set aside under section 11(2) of Act for purpose of setting up of Digital Research and Training Centre but donated to another trust, i.e., Synapse, which cannot be constructed to have been fulfilled purpose of accumulation?" In relation to first three questions Mr. Malhotra would submit that Assessing Officer committed no mistake and his understanding of provisions of law was accurate. Chapter III of Income-tax Act, 1961, according to Mr. Malhotra, is entitled "Incomes which do not form part of total income". Mr. Malhotra submits that term "total income" appearing in section 10 and wording of section 11 would indicate as to how what shall not be included in terms of section 10 in computing total income of previous year of any person will not govern interpretation of section 11. That section deals with income from property held for charitable or religious purpose. Sub-section (1) of that section has in clear terms stated that subject to provisions of sections 60 to 63, following income shall not be included in total income of previous year of person in receipt of income offered therein. Therefore, Assessing Officer held that for purposes of fulfilment of conditions of section 11 and section 12, particularly on application of income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purpose had not been further subjected to any exclusion. It is only exemption in terms of section 11 which would apply and in relation to persons like assessee before us. From their income there is no scope for exclusion of what is grantable under section 10(33) and section 10(38) of Income-tax Act. Thus, assessee would not be entitled to claim these benefits. That would subserve purpose of Act as well. In answer to this submission of Mr. Malhotra, Dr. Shivram, senior counsel appearing on behalf of assessee, would submit that in so far as Chapter III of Income-tax Act is concerned, though it is titled as "Incomes which do not form part of total income", as far as section 10 is concerned, that deals with incomes not included in total income and as far as section 11 is concerned income from property held for charitable or religious purposes is dealt with by it. There is no scope for argument that from total income of any person which may include trust or assessee before us, exclusion in terms of section 10 would not apply. It is after such exclusions that income from property held for charitable or religious purposes would have to be dealt with and in that amount matters covered by section 11 would not be included. Therefore, when words "total income" of previous year of person in receipt of income have been used in both places then there was no scope for Assessing Officer to arrive at conclusion which he did. He was rightly corrected though his view was confirmed by Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals). Tribunal's order does not give rise to questions of law and particularly formulated as questions (A) to (C). In relation to other three questions, Mr. Malhotra would submit that Tribunal erred in holding that Commissioner's direction to Assessing Officer to reconsider assessee's claims deserves to be set aside. Commissioner had directed that Assessing Officer should verify whether Rs. 30,00,000 which was accumulated and set aside under section 11(2) was utilised for specified purpose and within stipulated period. Now, assessee claims that this sum was indeed utilised for setting up of Digital Research and Training Centre. However, that was donated to another trust and, hence, condition stipulated in section 11(2) of Income-tax Act was not satisfied. There was no harm in Assessing Officer making necessary verification, scrutiny and enquiry. Therefore, these questions are also substantial questions of law. On other hand, Dr. Shivram would submit that Tribunal concluded that all details were before Commissioner. Out of total expenses of Rs. 48,78,000 incurred during period relevant to assessment year 2002- 03, sum of Rs. 30,00,000 has been spent out of accumulated amount. When amount accumulated for assessment year 2001-02 has been fully spent during period relevant to assessment year 2002-03, then condition was fully satisfied. There was no reason to send matter back. This finding was fully satisfied. There was no reason to send matter back. This finding recorded in paragraph 5 of order of Tribunal, according to Dr. Shivram, does not raise any substantial question of law. It is essentially factual. Therefore, on both counts, appeal does not deserve to succeed and ought to be dismissed. We have, with assistance of counsel appearing for both sides, perused appeal paper-book and impugned orders. Assessing Officer was of view that return of income which was filed along with income and expenditure account, balance-sheet, audited report and by assessee claiming to be charitable organisation needs scrutiny in light of legal provision and, namely, section 11 of Income-tax Act. Assessing Officer noted that sum of Rs. 25,96,287 received on account of dividend income is claimed as exempt under section 10(33) of Income-tax Act. However, this income forms part of income from trust property and, therefore, can only be claimed to be exempt under section 11 of Income-tax Act if applied for charity and not under section 10(33) of Income-tax Act. claim of exemption under section 10(33) of Income-tax Act is, therefore, not allowable. Similar is position with regard to sum received of Rs. 3,21,124 on account of long-term capital gain on redemption of mutual fund investment. That cannot be claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of Income-tax Act. This finding of Assessing Officer is based only on reading of sections 10, 11, 12 and 13. In his view, if provisions of sections 11, 12, and 13 of Incometax Act are governing provisions and relate to exemption claimed by charitable institutions, then assessee has no option to choose whether it wants to avail of exemption under section 10(33) or section 11 of Income-tax Act, 1961. He relied upon circular of 1968 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes. He also relied upon language of section 11(1) and expression "total income" defined in section 2(45) of Income-tax Act, 1961, as total amount of income computed in manner laid down in this Act. Assessing Officer was of view that word "income" used in section 11(1)(a) does not have same meaning as has been specifically assigned to expression "total income", vide section 2(45) of Act. Upon perusal of order of Assessing Officer and that of Commissioner upholding it, we are of view that Tribunal was correct in setting aside these concurrent orders. language of two sections is plain and clear. provisions, namely, sections 10 and 11 fall under Chapter which is titled "Incomes which do not form part of total income" (Chapter III). Section 10 deals with incomes not included in total income whereas section 11 deals with income from property held for charitable or religious purposes. We have not found anything in language of two provisions nor was Mr. Malhotra able to point out as to how when certain income is not to be included in computing total income of previous year of any person, then that which is excluded from section 10 could be included in total income of previous year of person/ assessee. That may be person who receives or derives income from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes. Thus, income which is not to be included in computation of total income is matter dealt with by section 10 and by section 11 case of assessee who has received income derived from property held under trust only for charitable or religious purposes to extent to which such income is applied to such property in India and that any such income is accumulated or set apart for application for such purposes in India to extent of which income so accumulated or set apart in computing 15 per cent. of income of such property, is dealt with. Therefore, it is particular assessee and who is in receipt of such income as is falling under clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 11 who would be claiming exemption or benefit. That is income derived by person from property. It is that which is dealt with and if property is held in trust for specified purpose, income derived therefrom is exempt and to extent indicated in section 11(1)(a) of Income-tax Act, 1961. There is nothing in language of section 10 or section 11 which says that what is provided by section 10 or dealt with is not to be taken into consideration or omitted from purview of section 11. If we accept argument of Mr. Malhotra and Revenue, same would amount to reading into provisions something which is expressly not there. In such circumstances, Tribunal was right in its conclusion that income which in this case assessee-trust has not included by virtue of section 10, then that cannot be considered under section 11. In circumstances and when income from property held for charitable or religious purpose is not matter covered or dealt with by section 10 that Tribunal's view cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error or law apparent on face of record. clear language of these provisions enables us to uphold order of Tribunal. It is, accordingly, upheld. Revenue's appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. Even with regard to other two matters, we do not think that Tribunal order raises any substantial question of law. Tribunal has interfered with direction of Commissioner. That was direction which was not called for according to Tribunal. Thus, remittance or remand back to Assessing Officer was unnecessary because all factual materials were already on record and before Commissioner as also Tribunal. In circumstances and when there was no dispute on facts that Commissioner's order was interfered with. same also does not raise any substantial question of law. As result of above discussion, appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. *** Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. Jasubhai Foundation