Satish Chandra, C.J.
1. By a trust deed dated April 24, 1958, a trust known as Surjidevi Kunjilal Jaipuria Charitable Trust was created. For the assessment year 1961-62, the question arose whether this trust was entitled to exemption under Section 4(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act. It appears that before the Tribunal, learned counsel appearing for the trust had conceded that two of the objects mentioned in that trust deed could not be classified as objects of public charity. The Tribunal ultimately held that the trust was not entitled to exemption under the aforesaid provision. On a reference to this court, this court emphasised that since it was conceded before the Tribunal that two of the objects were not objects of public charity, this court could not proceed on the footing as if all the objects were objects of public charity. Ultimately, this court upheld the opinion of the Tribunal that the trust was not entitled to exemption.
2. For the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, the same question has been referred by the Tribunal for our opinion. In the present case, there is no observation in the judgment of the Tribunal that the counsel appearing for the trust made any concession with respect to any of the objects either before it or before the subordinate income-tax authorities. The Tribunal none the less disposed of the appeal on the basis of its judgment rendered for the earlier year.
3. The position is that there is no finding by the Tribunal on the merits of the matter, specially on the two objects which were the subject-matter of concession on the previous occasion. Learned counsel for the trust argues that each of the objects is an object of public charity which is covered by the relevant clause in the Income-tax Act of 1961, entitling the trust to exemption. Since the Tribunal has not recorded any finding on the merits of the matter, we are unable to decide the question of law as it has been framed. In our opinion, the Tribunal should have proceeded to record the findings on merits and not merely followed its earlier decision. We have no option but to direct the Tribunal to rehear the appeal and decide it in accordance with law. Similar directions have been made by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. : 68ITR200(SC) and followed by the Madras High Court in B. Muniappa Gounder v. Commissioner of Income-tax : 102ITR787(Mad) .
4. We, therefore, return the reference unanswered with a direction that the Tribunal shall proceed to rehear the appeal and decide it in accordancewith law in the light of the observations made above. The assessee will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.