PRAKASH KRISHNA,RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA),JJ. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed against the order dated 4.12.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal u/s 260 -A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal by the order under appeal has decided two appeals filed by the Department and one appeal filed by the assessee. The appeals of the Revenue before the Tribunal were for the assessment years 1992 -93, 1995 -96 and of the assessee for the assessment year 2000 -01. In the memo of appeal, the following substantial question of law have been framed: - 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in directing the A.O. to frame the assessment of the assessee in the status of A.O.P. (Trust) and not in the status of A.O.P.? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in resorting the issue of expenses back to the file of the A.O. to examine the expenses as claimed by the assessee in the Income and Expenditure Account despite the fact that the A.O. had disallowed the same as being bogus after appreciating the evidence and material on record?
(2.) HEARD Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Siddharth Pathak, learned counsel for the assessee respondent. So far as Question No. 1 is concerned, the Tribunal has noticed that for the preceding years, the status of the assessee respondent was accepted as A.O.P. (Trust). The matter has been examined by the Tribunal at great length and it has been found that there is no change in the said status of the assessee respondent. It has been observed that there is no dispute that the assessee was running an educational institution which is a recognized charitable institution. The assessee M/S Sant Atulanand Convent School, Gilat Bazar, Varanasi, is duly registered under the Societies Registration Act as well as u/s 21 -A of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue could not place any material to show that the factual matrix in the relevant assessment years is in any manner different than the earlier assessment years. The factual position being static, the I.T.A.T. has rightly followed the inter -party decisions for the earlier assessment years. In view of the fact that the assessee's status in the earlier years was taken as that of A.O.P. (Trust), we do not find any good ground to differ from the order of the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal is a terra ferma. So far as the second question is concerned, the Tribunal has decided nothing and restored the issue to the Assessing Authority for re -examination. The second question therefore, does not raise any substantial question of law. The appeal is concluded by findings of fact. It is dismissed summarily.;