JUDGMENT 1. This is an income-tax reference at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The following questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal for answer by this court ; " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-trust is entitled to claim of exemption under Section 11 when declaration was filed in contravention of Rule 17 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 13(1)(bb) are not applicable to the assessee's case ?" 2. The assessee, Bhilai Mahila Samaj, is a trust formed with the object of looking after the family members of the employees of the Bhilai Steel Plant who owing to accident have either expired or have been rendered invalid. The original assessment for the year under consideration was completed on a total income of Rs. 90,990. On appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was held that the assessee was a charitable trust and hence entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under Section 147(b) of the Act applying the provisions of Section 13(1)(bb) of the Act, and brought to charge the said amount of Rs. 90,990. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the assessee's appeal holding that the provisions of Section 13(1)(bb) of the Act are not applicable. The Department moved the Tribunal and the Tribunal held that the issue involved was not res integra because it was already, decided in favour of the assessee, vide its order dated January 10, 1985, for the assessment year 1979-80. Therefore, the Revenue approached the Tribunal for making a reference to this court and hence the aforesaid questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal for answer by this court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. A finding of fact has been recorded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal that the income of the trust is used for the welfare of the affected families of the Bhilai Steel Plant and, therefore, Section 13(1)(bb) of the Act is not applicable. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. A finding of fact has been recorded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal that the income of the trust is used for the welfare of the affected families of the Bhilai Steel Plant and, therefore, Section 13(1)(bb) of the Act is not applicable. Both the authorities, i.e., the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal, have held that in fact the charitable trust is engaged in the activity of helping the poor and destitute. It has also been observed that the persons who are employed by the trust are benefited by the trust. In fact, they are carrying on activities for their own benefit and it has no intention of carrying on any business. Hence, it was held that the entire process is for the benefit of persons who are engaged in the business activity carried on by the trust. Therefore, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and the same was affirmed by the Tribunal. 4. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, it has rightly been decided by the Tribunal and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. So far as the first question regarding invoking of Rule 17 read with Section 11 of the Act is concerned, it may be observed that this argument was nowhere raised by the Revenue either before the Assessing Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or before the Tribunal. Therefore, now for the first time in this reference, this question cannot be raised. Hence, this question is also answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 5. In the result, both the questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.