Judgment :- K.L. MANJUNATH, J. These appeals are preferred by the Revenue challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The Tribunal has passed a common order in I.T.A.Nos.1526 to 1531 /Bang/2002, 209 and 1482/Bang/2003. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law. i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Assessee is entitled to create a separate “Development Fund” and transfer part of his earnings to the same and treat it as exempt from tax on the ground that it is being used for past and future training without basing such a conclusion on any cogent evidence and especially when similar expenses are already claimed and allowed in favour of the assessee? ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that 50% of the expenditure of Rs.28,50,000/- incurred for training in tennis by the assessee during incipiency for the years 1989-90 to 1993-94 can be claimed as a revenue expense by amortization for 10 subsequent years including the current assessment year? 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The learned counsel for the parties submit that question No.1 has been answered by this Court in I.T.A. No. 2605/2005 today between the same parties and the matter has been remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Therefore they submit that in order to consider question No.1 the matter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer in the light of the observation made by this Court in I.T.A. No. 2605/2005. Accordingly we pass the order on question No.1. 4. In view of our answer to substantial question No.1, we have to consider the substantial question No.2 only. In order to consider the substantial question No.2, it would be appropriate for us to consider the facts of this case which are as follows: The assessee is a renowned tennis player. His father was also a renowned tennis player. Both the father and son have represented the nation in Lawn tennis. The assessee filed the return of income claiming deduction in a sum of Rs. 28,50,000/- in respect of the amount spent by his father towards his education, food, clothing, traveling expenses and training given by his father to him. His father was also a renowned tennis player. Both the father and son have represented the nation in Lawn tennis. The assessee filed the return of income claiming deduction in a sum of Rs. 28,50,000/- in respect of the amount spent by his father towards his education, food, clothing, traveling expenses and training given by his father to him. On the ground that he and his father have entered into an agreement on 10.6.1994 whereunder the assessee has agreed to reimburse the total amount of Rs. 28,50,000/-spent by his father from his birth within 10 years from his starting earning. He sought amortization for 10 years at the rate of Rs. 2,85,000/- per annum. 5. Revenue rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the claim of the assessee cannot be entertained. Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which appeal also came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee filed a second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench. The Tribunal considering the arguments advanced by both the parties held that the assessee can claim 50% of Rs. 28,50,000/- which has to be amortized for a period of 10 years. 6. Challenging the legality and correctness of the order of the tribunal, the revenue has come up in this appeal. 7. Mr. Seshachala, contends that the agreement dt. 10.6.1994 entered into between the father and son has to be rejected as it is entered into only to avoid tax and such agreement is contrary to the very foundation of Hindu Mitakshara school of law as it is the pious duty of the father to educate and uplift his progeny and the agreement cannot be enforced in any court of law as it is the moral duty of the father and a pious obligation to maintain his child and the same would be contrary to the provisions of Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act and the first principles of Hindu law. Therefore, he contends that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in allowing the appeal. Alternatively, he contends that the amount of Rs. 28,50,000/-has not been proved by the assessee in order to seek deduction. Accordingly, he requests to allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the Tribunal. 8. Therefore, he contends that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in allowing the appeal. Alternatively, he contends that the amount of Rs. 28,50,000/-has not been proved by the assessee in order to seek deduction. Accordingly, he requests to allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the Tribunal. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee contends that the father being a renowned tennis player who was running a coaching class at Oman for tennis players, he is entitled to claim his fees and it cannot be said that the agreement is a strange one and entered into to avoid tax liability. The father of the assessee being a trainer, he is entitled to claim the amount spent by him to train the students. Therefore, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal. 9. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the substantial question No.2 has to be answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee for the following reasons: This Court for the first time has come across an agreement entered into between the father and son wherein the son has agreed to reimburse the amount spent by his father towards his maintenance and education and such contract is unheard of under the provisions of the Hindu law. It is the pious and moral obligation of the father to maintain the son during his minority or till he independently starts earning. The assessee has stated that his father has spent a sum of Rs. 28,50,000/-not in the year of assessment. According to him, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is spent in the year 1989-90, Rs.3,00,000/-in the year 1990-91, Rs.3,50,000/- in the year 1991-92, Rs.10,50,000/- in the year 199293, and Rs.10,00,000/- in the year 1993-94. No documents are produced along with the return to show the amount spent by his father with any details. According to the assessee, a sum of Rs.28,50,000/-has been spent for over a period of 4 years. If really, there was an agreement between the father and son, such agreement would have come into existence before training the son by the father. But in the instant case, the agreement has been entered into after the assessee start getting remuneration from the tennis association which would only shows that the agreement has come into existence only to defeat the tax liability of the assessee. But in the instant case, the agreement has been entered into after the assessee start getting remuneration from the tennis association which would only shows that the agreement has come into existence only to defeat the tax liability of the assessee. The father cannot claim any reimbursement in respect of the amount spent by him for the education, food and clothing of his son. The father and son cannot enter into such contract. As per Hindu law, the purpose of Hindu getting married is to continue his progeny and it is the moral obligation and a moral duty to maintain his off springs as one would not attain heaven unless and until his son offers pinda after his demise. Therefore, the agreement would be contrary to the concept of Hindu law. Even otherwise since there was no agreement prior to spending the amount or prior to coaching the son by the father, such agreement cannot be believed as it is a sham document. As contended by Mr. Seshachala, no documents were also produced by the assessee to show that the father of the assessee has spent a sum of Rs.28,50,000/- for his maintenance for a period of 4 years. 10. In the circumstances, we answer substantial question No.2 in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 11. In the result, in view of our finding on substantial question No.1, we remand the appeals to the Assessing Officer only to consider the substantial question No.1 in the light of the observations made by us in ITA No. 2605/2005.