JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal challenging the order dated 19.03.2018, passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in appeal No.23/Jodh/2018. 2. Succinctly stated the facts in brief are that the respondent society, a unit of Rajasthan Agriculture Market Board, registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being a Charitable trust, filed its return of income for assessment year 2014-15, declaring its taxable income as NIL while claiming exclusion of a sum of Rs.2,30,32,139/- having been set apart to be used for specific purposes. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer issued a notice dated 21.10.2016 inter alia asking as to why the amount of Rs.2,30,32,139/- remained unutilized may not be added to assessee's income. The assessee thereafter filed reply, requisite Form No.10 and resolution of the Society on 08.12.2016 and in light of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Nagpur Hotel Owners' Association, 247 ITR 201(SC), requested to drop the proceedings. The Assessing Officer however made an addition of Rs.2,30,32,139/-, vide its order dated 28.12.2016 as the assessee has failed to submit Form No.10 along with the return. 4. The respondent assessee preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 28.12.2016, which came to be rejected by the appellate authority, vide its order dated 27.11.2017. The appellate authority observed that the resolution for setting apart the amount of Rs.2,30,32,139/- was not even passed on the date of filing of the return i.e. 30.11.2014 and Form 10B came to be filed on 08.12.2016, after the return of income had been filed and confirmed the addition of Rs.2,30,32,139/-. 5. Feeling aggrieved of the orders of the authorities below, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur. While allowing the assessee's appeal, the learned Members of the Tribunal relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in case of Nagpur Hotel Owners Association, reported in, (2001) 247 ITR 201 (SC). 6. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal dated 19.3.2018, Mr. While allowing the assessee's appeal, the learned Members of the Tribunal relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in case of Nagpur Hotel Owners Association, reported in, (2001) 247 ITR 201 (SC). 6. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal dated 19.3.2018, Mr. Bissa, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has erred in relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Nagpur Hotel Owners Association inasmuch as the said judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court deals with a situation where Form No.10 was filed after completion of assessment and the appeal of the department in any case was allowed. Mr. Bissa submitted that language of Rule 17 is unambiguous and it requires Form 10 to be furnished along with the return and on assessee's failure to do the same, the assessing officer was justified in making the addition of the amount in question. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 8. It is not in dispute that after filing of the return and before the assessment was completed, the assessee had furnished requisite details including resolution and the notice to the AO as required under Section 11(2) of the Act in the prescribed Form 10. The entitlement of the assessee for seeking setting apart of the amount of Rs.2,30,32,139/- is not in dispute. The assessing officer has made the addition of the amount only on account of the fact that the respondent assessee had submitted Form No.10 subsequently. 9. In our considered opinion, the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in case of Nagpur Hotel Owners Association (supra) squarely applies to the facts of present case, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that Form No.10 should be submitted before framing of the assessment order. It would not be out of place to reproduce the relevant excerpt of the above referred judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Nagpur Hotel Owners Association, which reads thus :- "It is abundantly clear from the wordings of sub-section (2) of Section 11 that it is mandatory for the person claiming the benefit of Section 11 to intimate to the assessing authority the particulars required, under Rule 17 in Form No.10 of the Act. If during the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer does not have the necessary information, question of excluding such income from assessment does not arise at all. As a matter of fact, this benefit of excluding this particular part of the income from the net of taxation arises from Section 11 and is subjected to the conditions specified therein. Therefore, it is necessary that the assessing authority must have this information at the time he completes the assessment. In the absence of any such information, it will not be possible for the assessing authority to give the assessee the benefit of such exclusion and once the assessment is so completed, in our opinion, it would be futile to find fault with the assessing authority for having included such income in the assessable income of the assessee. Therefore, even assuming that there is no valid limitation prescribed under the Act and the Rules even then, in our opinion, it is reasonable to presume that the intimation required under Section 11 has to be furnished before the assessing authority completes the concerned assessment because such requirement is mandatory and without the particulars of this income the assessing authority cannot entertain the claim of the assessee under Section 11 of the Act, therefore, compliance of the requirement of the Act will have to be any time before the assessment proceedings." 10. That apart, as long as the entitlement of the assessee regarding setting apart of the accumulated profit is not doubted, no addition can be made on the pretext that Form No.10 was filed belatedly. 11. This view of ours is fully fortified by a Division Bench of this Court rendered in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anjuman Moinia Fakharia, reported in, (1994) 208 ITR 568 (Raj) wherein this Court has held as under :- "From the circular issued by the Department dated June 3, 1980 and the judgment of the apex court referred to above, it can be considered that the requirement to prescribe (sic) the time-limit is only directory and not mandatory. Non-compliance within the stipulated time should not disentitle an assessee from the exemption to which he is otherwise entitled. The Income Tax Officer has rejected the claim of the assessee only on the ground that the notice for accumulation under Section 11(2) is beyond time. Non-compliance within the stipulated time should not disentitle an assessee from the exemption to which he is otherwise entitled. The Income Tax Officer has rejected the claim of the assessee only on the ground that the notice for accumulation under Section 11(2) is beyond time. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has examined this matter and has observed that the Income Tax Officer has not doubted the correctness of the resolution or the accounts of the trust and for that purpose the Income Tax Officer was directed to verify the assessee's claim and allow the exemption in respect of accumulations as claimed by the assessee. There is another point that the provisions of Rule 17 which are framed under Section 11(2) before April 1, 1971, did not prescribe any time-limit for filing Form No.10 and without there being any amendment in the provisions of the Act, the rule was substituted with effect from April 1, 1971, prescribing the time-limit from the assessment year 1971- 72. Prior to the assessment year 1971-72, the form could have been submitted upto the stage of assessment." 12. We do not find any question of law much less a substantial question of law, requiring adjudication by this Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.