JAYANT PATEL, J. - (1.)In both the appeals, the only question which arise for consideration vide order dated 12th Feb., 2016 in IT Appeal No. 300 of 2015 is as under :
"6. Whether, in the given facts and circumstances, the Honourable Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is eligible to claim accumulation under section 11(2) without appreciating the fact that the requirement of declaring the intention of the assessee to accumulate/set apart certain amount of income which could not be applied in the same assessment year as provided under section 11 (2) is mandatory and the same should be spelt out in clear terms in tire statutory Form No. 10 filed along with the return of income and the assessee is required to invest or deposit such accumulated income in the forms or modes specified in section 11 (5) ?"

(2.)It. may be recorded that when IT Appeal No. 300 of 2015 came to be considered for admission on 12th Feb., 2016, the appeal was admitted only on the aforesaid question. However, so far as IT Appeal No. 7 of 2016 is concerned, the said appeal is so far not admitted. Hence, even if it is to be considered, the said appeal would require to be considered only on the above referred question. Hence, both the appeals are heard simultaneously.
(3.)We may also record that in IT Appeal No. 7 of 2016 so far as question No. 1 is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents-Revenue (sic-appellant-Revenue) has fairly declared that the said question is covered against the Revenue as per the decision dated 22nd Feb., 2016 of this Court in IT Appeal No. 1 of 2013 and allied matters. However, he stated that the matter is carried before the apex Court.