IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI B BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI.U.B.S. BEDI J.M. & SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE A.M. I.T.A. NO. 174/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(2), PONDICHERRY. . VS. M/S. SOORYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, NO. 375, M.G. ROAD, PONDICHERRY 605 001. [PAN:AADTS8694M] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI K.E.B. RANGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL ASSESSEE BY : NONE ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M . THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) XII, CHENNAI DATED 26.11. 2010 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, WHEREBY RAISING FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS NO. 2 AND 3: 2. THE CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE FA CT THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED APPEALS IN THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT FOR THE A SST. YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST CAN NOT BE BROUGHT UNDER THE DEFIN ITION OF CHARIT ABLE PURPOSE U/S 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THEREFORE GRANTI NG DEEMED REGISTRATION WOULD DEFEAT THE VERY OBJECTIVE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE (AD ON RECORD), EITHER THE ASSESSEE OR ANY PERSON AUTHORIZED BY HIM HAS NOT APPEARED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY ADJOURNM ENT REQUEST. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AFTE R HEARING THE LD. DR AND CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. I.T.A. NO.174/MDS/11 2 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. DR SUBMI TTED THAT SO FAR AS THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL A BENCH IN ASSESSEES CASE IN ITA NOS. 361 & 362/MDS/2010 DATED 16.06.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 AR E CONCERNED, IT HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE ASSESSEE TRUST AS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A AND REDO THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 AND 13 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. SO, AT THE MOST, T HE LD. CIT(A) COULD SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE AFRESH IN TERMS OF DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR EAR LIER TWO YEARS. BUT, HERE DIRECTION HAS BEEN PASSED TO REVISE THE IMPUGNED OR DER WITHOUT PROPERLY FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE, IN ALL FAIRNESS, IT WAS PLEADED TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE SAME IN CONS ONANCE WITH THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR EARLIER YEARS. 4. AFTER HAVING HEARD THE LD. DR AND CONS IDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT IN THE EARLIER 2 YEARS CASE, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED CERTAIN DIRECTION AND IT IS THE PLEA OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ORDER SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND MATTER BE RESTORED BACK ON THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE IT AT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 DA TED 16.06.2010 (COPY FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT). THIS PLEA OF THE DEPAR TMENT APPEARS TO BE JU STIFIED AND WHILE CONSIDERING THE SAME, WE SET ASIDE T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK ON THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES CASE FOR EARLIER I.T.A. NO.174/MDS/11 3 ASSESSMENT YEARS VIDE ORDER DATED 16. 06.2010 AND PASS FRESH ORDER AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED SOON AFTER THE C ONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 05.04.2011. SD- SD- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE. 05.04.2011 VM/- TO:THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.