Judgment :- 1. The following question has been, at the instance of the Revenue, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in taw in holding that the Shubh Laga Collections made by the assessee-firm is not income of the assessee?" In respect of the assessment year 1971-72, the previous year ending 30-10-1970, the assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 8,627/- as money collected not as part of its income and, therefore, not liable to be taxed. The claim was disallowed and the amount was added. The contention of the assessee was that this sum was collected from its customers for the purpose of a charity called "Sri. Shubh Laga". The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the assessee's appeal stating: "I have recorded in my earlier order that the appellant was under no obligation, legal or practical, to hand over any part of its collections to any recognised charity. I have also pointed out that, in fact, large amounts have been paid by this assessee to personal friends of the partners which is evidence in itself that there is no claim upon the appellant that is legally binding on the matter of disposal of the so called charity collections. For the reasons given in my earlier year's order I dismiss the appeal." On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal reversed the findings of the assessing authority and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and held that money collected for charity was not part of the income, and no tax could be levied in respect of such amounts. The Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Thakur Das Shyam Sunder v. Addl. Commr. of Income-Tax., (1974) 93 I.T.R. 27. 2. Counsel for the assessee refers to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Thakur Das Shyam Sunder v. Addl. Commr, of Income-Tax, (1974) 93 I.T.R. 27; of the Supreme Court in C.I.T. v. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. (1979) 116 I.T.R.60; and of this Court in Commr. of Income-tax v. M/S. International Spice Co. (I.T.R. No. 30 of 1978), and submits that what was collected was collected as charity and, therefore, no tax could be attracted in respect of such collections. 3. Significantly the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had found that amounts collected in the earlier year for "Sri. of Income-tax v. M/S. International Spice Co. (I.T.R. No. 30 of 1978), and submits that what was collected was collected as charity and, therefore, no tax could be attracted in respect of such collections. 3. Significantly the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had found that amounts collected in the earlier year for "Sri. Shubh Laga" had been paid by the assessee to personal friends of the partners. Strangely enough, neither the order of the Tribunal for the previous year in question nor its order in relation to the year earlier to the previous year contains a reference to the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as regards the misutilisation of the funds. That is a question which ought to have been investigated, for the answer to that question would have determined the character of the funds collected. 4. The mere fact that money had been collected supposedly for charity would not mean that such amount did not become part of the income. The question is whether income had accrued. Income did result, whatever be the label under which money was collected, if what was collected was treated as income. It is not the label that decides the question, but the character of the money collected. If what was supposedly collected as charity, by using that label, was in fact utilised by the assessee for purposes other than charity, then such utilisation, though a subsequent conduct, must govern the determination of the character of the money collected. To that extent the subsequent conduct is relevant. If as a matter of fact, as found by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, that amounts collected as charity during the year earlier to the year of account in question had been utilised for the purpose of making loans and gifts to personal friends of the partners, such utilisation negatived the genuineness of the label under which amounts were collected, and such amounts were, therefore, liable to be added as income of the assessee. 5. Unfortunately the decision of the Tribunal relating to that earlier year did not refer to this fact and that decision was not challenged by the Revenue. Nevertheless, for the present accounting year, although the Tribunal has once again chosen to ignore that crucial and significant finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the matter having come up before us in the present proceeding, requires proper consideration. 6. Nevertheless, for the present accounting year, although the Tribunal has once again chosen to ignore that crucial and significant finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the matter having come up before us in the present proceeding, requires proper consideration. 6. It must, however be pointed out that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in disposing of the appeal did not investigate the question as regards the position in the relevant accounting year, but merely referred to the finding in the earlier year. The fact that there was misutilisation in the earlier year would not by itself negative the claim of the assessee, although the earlier conduct might be a guide as to the genuineness of the claim of the assessee. The matter, however, requires to be investigated. 7. We should like to make it clear that the principle enunciated in the decisions cited above can hold good only if the facts showed that what was collected was in fact genuinely collected and validly earmarked and held as charity under an obligation to spend the sum solely for the purposes of charity. This is a question which requires to be decided with reference to the facts of each case. 8. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal should consider the question as to whether what was said of the year earlier to the relevant accounting year was also true of the present accounting year, and if so whether such fact negatived the claim of the assessee. This is a matter for the Tribunal to determine. 9. In the circumstances, we do not answer the question referred to us. 10. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in this Tax Referred Case. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.