Judgment M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "learned Tribunal") dated 11.10.2013 passed in IT Appeal No. 610/Ahd/2013 Vanchhare Tirthadhipati Chintamani Parwaprwabhu Trust v. ADIT (Exemption), by which the learned Tribunal has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent herein and has directed the DIT (E) to grant the registration under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act to the assessee, the revenue has preferred the present appeal raising the following substantial questions of law: "A. Whether the appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in setting aside the order of DIT (E) holding that dissolution clause is not necessary in the deed of charitable trust? B. Whether in view of the fact that the assessee is a public charitable trust, should the deed not have a clause that upon dissolution no asset will go to any trustee, donor settler etc?" We have heard Shri M.R. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Hemani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent - original appellant. 2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, it appears that the learned Tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent herein relying upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Shri Chargam Dosha Porwad Mahamandal v. DIT (Exemption) [IT Appeal Nos. 337 and 338/Ahd./2013, dated 4-4-2013] and considering the fact that in the case of the respondent trust, there is a dissolution clause and the provisions made in the trust deed itself, in the eventuality, the trust is closed. 3. It is required to be noted that as such, the decision of the learned Tribunal in the case of Shri Chargam Dosha Porwad Mahamandal (supra) has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.2.2014 passed in Tax Appeal No. 1147 of 2013 with Tax Appeal No. 1148 of 2013. 4. Considering the fact that in the case of the respondent trust, as such, the trust deed does provide the dissolution clause, as such, substantial questions of law raised in the present tax appeal would not survive. So, in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal has not held that the dissolution clause is not necessary in the deed of charitable trust. So, in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal has not held that the dissolution clause is not necessary in the deed of charitable trust. Even otherwise, from the order passed by the DIT (E), it appears that in the trust deed of the respondent trust, there is a provision/clause with respect to closure of the trust, which reads as under: "If necessary to close the trust then the property of trust be handover other institution trust having similar objects by passing resolution by minimum 2/3rd majority of members and unanimous decision of committee working trustees." 5. Under the circumstances, when the trust deed specifically provides for a closure of the trust and it specifically provides that if necessary to close the trust, than the property of the trust be handed over to other institution-trust having similar objects by passing resolution by minimum 2/3rd majority of the trust and unanimous decision of the committee working trustees and considering the above, when the learned Tribunal has directed the DIT (E) to grant the registration under section 12AA of the Act, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error, which calls for the interference of this Court. It goes without saying that any decision to close the trust even in the eventuality as per the aforesaid clause shall always be after obtaining appropriate permission from the Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trust Act. 6. Under the circumstances, and in view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the substantial questions of law raised/framed are not required to be answered and are accordingly not answered. With this, present tax appeal is dismissed. No costs. In Favour of Assessee.