Since common issue is involved in all these appeals, same are being disposed of by common order for sake of convenience. issues involved in these appeals are, (i) whether, on facts of case and in law, assessee was entitled to exemption under s. 10(22) of IT Act, 1961 (Act), (ii) alternatively, whether, assessee was entitled to exemption under s. 11 of Act, and (iii) whether, on facts of case, additions made by AO were justified. Briefly stated facts are these: assessee is society registered with Charity Commr., Maharashtra State, Bombay. following persons were office bearers and members of society: (i) Mr. Joagoim Mandonca, Chairman; (ii) Mr. Abraham Chacko, Secretary; (iii) A. Vincent Alburquerque, Vice Chairman; (iv) Mrs. Pressy Alburquerque, Treasurer; (v) Miss Maria Pereira, Member; (vi) Mr. C.D. Menezes, Member. society was registered under s. 12A with CIT under IT Act, 1961, Bombay. object of society is to run various schools. following schools were run by society at various places in Bombay: (i) St. Lawrence High School, Avadhoot Nagar, Bombay; (ii) St. Luis High School, Rawalpada, Bombay; (iii) St. Xavier s High School, Poonam Nagar, Bombay; (iv) St. Xavier s High School, Saibaba Complex, Bombay; (v) St. Lawrence High School, Chatrapati Shivaji Marg, Bombay; (vi) St. Francis High School, Meena Nagar, Vasai, Thane; (vii) St. Alloysis High School, Nala Sopara, Dt. Thane. On 18th Aug., 1989, search and seizure action under s. 132 of Act was carried out at residential premises of Mr. A.F. Pinto, trustee of St. Xavier Educational Trust. Simultaneously, survey under s. 133A of Act was also carried out at office premises at Shiv Shakti Complex, Dahisar (East), Bombay, from where administration of assessee society was alleged to b e carried out. In course of search proceedings, certain incriminating materials were found showing unaccounted payments to various persons. statement of Mr. Abraham Chacko, who is also secretary of assessee society, was also recorded under s. 131 of Act, wherein it was admitted by him that donations were being received from students or parents thereof at time of admission, which was partly recorded in books of account and part of it remained unaccounted. It was further stated by him that 80 per cent of donations so received were accounted for in books of account. According to AO, during course of post-search investigation, it was found that managing trustees and trustees of assessee society had been taking personal benefit of making profit by way of compulsory sale of uniform, note books, ties, badges, etc., and transactions were not recorded in books of account. These observations were made in assessment order on basis of details given in assessment order for asst. yr. 1989-90 in case of St. Xavier Educational Trust. Secondly, he noted from statement of Mr. Abraham Chacko, recorded under s. 131 on date of search that part of donations received by him were not accounted for in books of assessee. Thirdly, he noticed from material found in course of search that certain unaccounted payments were made by assessee to Mr. Champaklal Dave (Rs. 10.59 lakhs), Mr. Balan (Rs. 3.20 lakhs) and M/s Poonam Investment (P) Ltd./Poonam Builders (Rs. 3 lakhs). In view of these facts, it was held by him (i) t h t assessee society existed for purpose of profit, and (ii) office bearers/trustees of assessee society were taking personal benefits and thus, provisions of s. 13(2)(d) were violated. Accordingly, assessee was not entitled to exemption under s. 10(22)/s. 11 of Act. On facts, he also made additions of Rs. 16.79 lakhs on account of unexplained payment of three parties mentioned above and Rs. 3.64 lakhs on account of unaccounted donations received by assessee in respect of asst. yr. 1989-90. He also treated donations recorded in books as income of assessee society. However, he allowed deductions of Rs. 6,00,365 on account of expenditure incurred in running of schools. Thus, total income for asst. yr. 1989-90 was determined as Rs. 25,98,287. In respect of asst. yr. 1990-91, total income was determined as Rs. 69,91,951 which included addition of Rs. 19,83,661 on account of unexplained payments made to Mr. Champaklal Dave and Mr. Balan and Rs. 7,80,414 on account of unaccounted donations received by assessee. total income also included sum of Rs. 11,70,622 being donations recorded in books of assessee. Both these assessments were challenged before learned CIT(A) before whom it was argued that (i) statements were recorded under duress and same were retracted subsequently, (ii) income of assessee society was utilised only for object of trust i.e. education, (iii) no personal benefit was taken by any of members or office bearers of assessee society, (iv) payments of builders had been made for purpose of school building which is also object of society, (v) money collected on account of sale of uniform, note books, ties, badges, etc., did not belong to society and collection had been given to suppliers of uniform, note books, ties, badges, etc. Reliance was also placed on judgment of Orissa High Court in case of Secondary Board of Education vs. ITO (1972) 86 ITR 408 (Ori) and on judgment of Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Governing Body of Rangaraya Medical College vs. ITO (1979) 117 ITR 284 (AP) in support of proposition that assessee was entitled to exemption under s. 10(22) of Act. After considering submissions of assessee, learned CIT(A) found that assessee society had been formed mainly for purpose of spreading and advancement of education and for that purpose, assessee had established schools at various places. It was also observed by him that separate receipt and expenditure statement in respect of each school had been maintained by assessee. He was also of view that each of schools be considered as educational institution and if such school existed solely for purpose of education, then income of such school should be exempted under s. 10(22) of Act. According to him, one school might be existing solely for purpose of education while other school might be existing for purpose of profit. It was further noticed by him that AO had not made any exercise to ascertain whether each school existed for purpose of education or for purpose of profit. It was also observed by him that educational institution would be considered as existing for purpose of profit, if (i) funds of institution are found to be utilised for benefit of trustees or for any other non-educational purposes, and (ii) fees charged by school is disproportionately higher than expenditure incurred. He was also of view that income of assessee society from various other sources could not be exempted from taxation under s. 10(22) since such income were not from educational activity. According to him, unless it is income from running of educational institution, it cannot be exempted under s. 10(22). In view of above discussion, learned CIT(A) restored matter for both assessment years to file of AO with direction that he should ascertain whether requirement of s. 10(22) were satisfied vis-a-vis each school run by assessee society. Regarding exemption under s. 11 of Act, learned CIT(A) noted that AO had not made any calculation about income earned by trustees out of sale of uniform, note books, ties, badges, etc. He also noted that A O simply relied upon his finding given in assessment order for asst. yr. 1989-90 in case of St. Xavier Educational Trust. Accordingly, he directed AO to re-examine this aspect of matter after bringing following facts on record: "(1) total amount received by appellant-society on sale of uniform, note books, etc. from students. (2) Number of students to whom uniform, books, etc. have been sold. (3) Name and address of contractors who supplied uniform, etc. (4) amount paid for uniform, etc. to contractors who supplied same." In addition, he also observed at p. 21 of his order that as donations were not voluntarily made but were in nature of consideration for giving admission to schools, same could not be considered as income derived from property held under trust for purpose of s. 11 of Act. In view of above discussion, he directed AO to examine availability of exemption under s. 11 of Act in respect of both assessment years after considering entire facts of case. Proceeding further, it was held by him that donations received by assessee recorded as well as unrecorded were income of assessee. He also relied on statement of Mr. Abraham Chacko and Mrs. Grace Pinto. According to him, donations were forcibly collected from students/parents i n violation of provisions of s. 3 of Maharashtra Educational Institution (Prohibition and Capitation Fee) Act, 1987. Reliance was also placed by him on unreported decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka (1992) 3 SCC 666. In view of these observations, it was held by him that donations received by assessee whether recorded or not constituted income of assessee. However, it was also held by him that no separate addition on account of unrecorded donation was required to be m d e since same would be covered by addition on account of unaccounted payments made to various parties namely Mr. Champaklal Dave, Mr. Balan and M/s Poonam Investment (P) Ltd./Poonam Builders. However, addition on account of unaccounted donation for asst. yr. 1990-91 was deleted in absence of evidence. Regarding addition of Rs. 10,59,000 on account of unrecorded payments to Mr. Champaklal Dave, it was argued before learned CIT(A) that total payments made up to 31st March, 1989 amounted to Rs. 20.23 lakhs as against Rs. 26.23 lakhs considered by AO. It was also stated that payment of Rs. 15.64 lakhs out of aforesaid amount had been made out of donations received by appellant society and, therefore, to that extent, there was no unexplained investment. After considering aforesaid argument, learned CIT(A) directed AO to consider payment made to Mr. Champaklal Dave out of donations recorded in books of account only to extent which payment had been shown in books of account. It was also observed that balance amount paid to him not recorded in books of account was obviously out of donations not accounted for in books of account. AO was also directed to verify correct amount paid to Mr. Champaklal Dave over and above amount of Rs. 15.64 lakhs. It was further observed that since unaccounted donations had been considered as income of assessee, then any amount of such donations paid for construction of building should also be considered as application of taxable income. For similar reasons, he also restored matter regarding addition of Rs. 19,17,161 pertaining to asst. yr. 1990-91, to file of AO for fresh adjudication. Regarding addition of Rs. 3.20 lakhs in respect of asst. yr. 1989-90 on account of unaccounted payment to Mr. Balan, it was submitted before learned CIT(A) that such payment was made as donation to him as trustee of St. Xavier Educational Trust which is also educational institution and, therefore, should be treated as application of income for education purposes. learned CIT(A) at p. 33 of his order was of view that donation not accounted for which is includible in taxable income of assessee as such cannot be considered as income from property held under trust and, therefore, any payment out of such taxable income cannot be allowed as deduction. addition was, therefore, confirmed. For similar reasons, he confirmed addition of Rs. 6.65 lakhs for asst. yr. 1990-91. Regarding addition of Rs. 3 lakhs made on account of unaccounted payments to Poonam Investment Co. (P) Ltd., it was submitted that aforesaid amount was paid for purchase of school building. learned CIT(A), for reasons given in preceding para dismissed ground raised by assessee. In pursuance of aforesaid order of learned CIT(A) dt. 24th Jan., 1993, AO proceeded to make fresh assessment as per directions given therein. matter regarding exemption under s. 10(22) of Act, AO noted that in asst. yr. 1989-90, there was overall surplus of Rs. 62,257 in respect of two schools run by assessee but for reasons given by him in case of St. Xavier Educational Trust, it was held by him that assessee was running school for earning profit. Accordingly, it was not entitled for benefit of exemption under s. 10(22). For similar reasons, it was held by him that assessee had violated various provisions of ss. 11 to 13 and consequently exemption under s. 11 could not be given. Regarding sale of uniform, note books, ties, badges, etc., it was observed by AO in para 7 of his order for asst. yr. 1989-90 that no collection was made by assessee in respect of sale of uniform, note books, ties, badges, etc. assessee was supplying only badges to students, cost of which was included in school fees. Hence, it was held that no addition was called for on this account. Regarding payment to Mr. Champaklal Dave in asst. yr. 1989-90, it was found by him that unaccounted payment amounted to Rs. 2.99 lakhs only. Since assessee was denied exemption under s. 10(22)/11 of Act, it was held by him that addition was required to be made in respect of such unaccounted payments. total income was thus determined at Rs. 14,07,290 for asst. yr. 1989-90 vide order dt. 30th March, 1995. In similar manner, exemption under ss. 10(22) and 11 of Act was denied to assessee for asst. yr. 1990-91. He also determined total income at Rs. 57,96,240 vide order dt. 30th March, 1995. However, it is pertinent to note that addition of Rs. 15 lakhs was also made on account of profit on sale of uniform, note books, ties, badges, etc. on basis of material found in course of search in case of St. Xavier Educational Trust. No addition was made regarding payment to Mr. Champaklal Dave. These orders were again challenged before learned CIT(A) who, vide common order dt. 16th Dec., 1996, following his order dt. 9th Dec., 1996 pertaining to asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990-91 in case of St. Xavier Educational Trust, held that assessee was entitled to exemption under s. 10(22) of Act. However, no order was passed regarding exemption under s. 11 of Act. Regarding addition on account of donations received and accounted for in books of account, it was observed by him that s. 10(22) provides blanket exemption to educational institution in respect of any income and, therefore, no addition could be made on this account. Regarding addition of Rs. 2.99 lakhs in asst. yr. 1989-90 on account of payments of Mr. Champaklal Dave out of unaccounted donations, he was of view that in view of blanket exemption under s. 10(22) such addition was not justified. Regarding other additions of Rs. 3 lakhs to Poonam Investment Co. (P) Ltd. in asst. yr. 1989-90 and Rs. 3.20 lakhs and Rs. 5.65 lakhs in asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990-91 to Mr. Balan, issue was not decided since matter was pending before Tribunal. addition of Rs. 15 lakhs on account of profit on sale of uniform, note books, ties, badges, etc. was deleted after following his order dt. 9th Dec., 1996 in case of St. Xavier Educational Trust. He also directed AO to allow deduction of Rs. 98,688 in asst. yr. 1990-91 on account expenditure incurred by assessee in respect of property of assessee. This direction was issued after obtaining no objection in remand report of AO. For similar reasons, he directed AO to allow educational expenses of Rs. 1.26 lakhs in asst. yr. 1990-91. Coming to asst. yr. 1991-92, facts are in short compass. AO denied exemption under s. 10(22) on ground (i) that, in earlier years, it was held that assessee was running schools for profit, and (ii) that, in asst. yr. 1992- 93 it is observed that assessee received deposits compulsory from students. exemption under s. 11 was denied as remuneration of Rs. 1,37,227 was paid to trustees which violated provisions of s. 13(1)(c) of Act. Thus, total income was assessed at Rs. 52,70,360 which included donation of Rs. 9,68,215. On appeal, learned CIT(A) held that assessee was entitled to exemption under s. 10(22) of Act for reasons given by him in case of St. Xavier Educational Trust. Regarding exemption under s. 11 of Act, it was found by him that factual finding of AO that remuneration was paid to trustees was factually incorrect. Accordingly, there was no violation of s. 13(1)(c) of Act and consequently, assessee was entitled to exemption under s. 11 of Act. Further, following decision of Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Governing Body of Rangaraya Medical College (supra), it was held that no addition could be made on account of donation of Rs. 9,68,215. He also allowed depreciation of Rs. 8,05,083 in respect of school building, furniture and fixture and other assets. Aggrieved by orders of learned CIT(A) dt. 24th Jan., 1993, in first round, assessee has preferred appeals before Tribunal, while Revenue has filed appeals against orders of learned CIT(A) dt. 16th Dec., 1996 in second round. Revenue has also filed appeal against order of learned CIT(A) dt. 17th Dec., 1996 pertaining to asst. yr. 1991-92. Both parties have been heard at length. perusal of common order dt. 16th Dec., 1996 of learned CIT(A) reveals that exemption under s. 10(22) of Act has been allowed to assessee for reasons given by him in his order dt. 9th Dec., 1996 in case of St. Xavier Educational Trust. It is conceded by both parties that said order was challenged by Revenue before Tribunal. Members who heard matter in that case differed on issue of exemption under s. 10(22) and dispute was referred to Third Member for his opinion. Hon ble Third Member, vide order dt. 30th Sept., 2002 held that assessee did not exist solely for purpose of education but existed for purpose of profit and thus, was not entitled to exemption under s. 10(22) of Act for reasons: (i) That, trustees were collecting unaccounted monies/black money from parents/guardians of students as per admission made in statement recorded in course of search on 18th Aug., 1989. retraction of such admission was not permissible since assessee had even admitted to have received such money, in course of assessment proceedings as well as in appellate proceedings. Thus, there was element of personal or private benefit. (ii) That, collection of unaccounted money was in violation of provisions of Maharashtra Educational Institution (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1987. (iii) That, as per trust deed, trustees were allowed only "honorarium" but it was revealed in course of search that Mr. A.F. Pinto, trustee of trust was using property of trust for his residence free of rent. Besides, trustees were also drawing handsome salaries. (iv) That, trust deed gave wide powers to apply income of trust for other objects mentioned in trust deed. Following opinion of Third Member, Tribunal, vide order dt. 4th Oct., 2004, held that assessee was not entitled to exemption under s. 10(22) of Act. In our opinion, facts of present case are similar to facts of St. Xavier Educational Trust inasmuch as Mr. Abraham Chacko, secretary of assessee society admitted in his statement that he was receiving donations from parents of students at time of admission and 80 per cent of such donations were accounted for in books of assessee. Third Member has already rejected plea of retraction of such statement. Further, material found in course of search reveals that unaccounted payments were made to Mr. Champaklal Dave, Mr. Balan and Poonam Investment Co. (P) Ltd. Further, unaccounted payments and receipts are substantial. Hon ble Third Member has held that inference of personal use of such money by trustees was reasonable. Therefore, considering entire facts and following decision of Tribunal in case of St. Xavier Educational Trust, it is held that assessee society did not exist solely for education purpose but existed for purpose of profit in asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990-91 since search material is intimately connected to these years. This issue for asst. yr. 1991-92 would be dealt with at later stage. However, it is pertinent to note that learned CIT(A), in para 3.5 of his order dt. 24th Jan., 1993, gave specific directions to examine availability of exemption under s. 10(22) with reference to each school since he was of view that each school run by assessee could be considered as educational institution. If income of such school was applied solely for purpose of education, then such income would qualify for exemption under s. 10(22). Such findings of learned CIT(A), having not been challenged by Revenue, have become final. In fresh proceedings, AO has simply rejected claim of assessee following his finding in case of St. Xavier Educational Trust. We are unable to uphold such action of AO. He should have examined facts in respect of each school and then should have decided issue of exemption under s. 10(22) vis-a-vis each school run by assessee. On going through assessment order for asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990-91, it appears that AO had considered surplus/deficit in respect of two schools only in asst. yr. 1989-90, while in asst. yr. 1990-91, he has considered same for 7 schools. There appears to be factual error in this regard which needs to be corrected. Further, receipts and expenditure mentioned in assessment order for asst. yr. 1989-90 do not match with receipt and expenditure mentioned in computation of income. only reason given by AO for rejecting claim of assessee are reasons given by him in this order in case of St. Xavier Educational Trust. We have gone through order of AO dt. 30th March, 1995 in case of St. Xavier Educational Trust, pertaining to asst. yr. 1989-90, wherein following reasons have been given for rejecting claim of assessee under s. 10(22) of Act vis-a-vis income of various schools run by that trust: (i) That, net result of surplus/deficit showed that schools were running on income proportionately high; (ii) That, seized material revealed that sum of Rs. 1 lakh was utilized by Mrs. Grace Pinto for her personal use as admitted by her in statement recorded at time of search; (iii) That, it was admitted by Mr. Abrahm Chacko, one of trustees in his statement recorded on date of search that part of moneys collected by him had been diverted elsewhere; (iv) That, portion of donation collected at time of admission of students was not accounted for in books; (v) That, services of trust were being utilized for making profit for personal benefit of trustee by way of mandatory sale of uniform, note books, ties, badges, etc; (vi) That, there was violation of provisions of s. 13(1)(a) of Act. In our view, reasons given above are not relevant for rejecting claim of assessee under s. 10(22) of Act vis-a-vis schools run by it though such reasons are relevant for rejecting claim of assessee trust itself. It is trust which was found to be indulging in unaccounted transactions and not individual schools. statement of Mr. Abraham Chacko as well as of Mrs. Grace Pinto shows that donations were received on behalf of trust itself which were utilized by trustees partly for purpose of education and partly for their personal use. As far as personal use by Mrs. Grace Pinto is concerned, we find that it was unaccounted trust money which was used by her and, therefore, does not effect claim of assessee in respect of schools. Though there is allegation that services of trust were utilized for sale of uniform, note books, ties, badges, etc., but it has not been proved on record in case of present assessee. In asst. yr. 1989-90, AO himself has given finding that no collection was made regarding uniform, note books, ties, badges, etc., and consequently, no addition was also made in assessment. No doubt, addition of Rs. 15 lakhs has been made on this account of asst. yr. 1990-91 but we find that such addition was made merely on surmises and conjectures. It is pertinent to note that no addition was made on this account in original order of assessment for asst. yr. 1990-91. Even in fresh assessment proceedings, addition of Rs. 15 lakhs has been made on presumption that assessee might have made collections similar to case of St. Xavier School. Such addition is impermissible in law and therefore same has been deleted by us in other part of order. There is also no evidence that any personal benefit was taken by trustees/members of assessee society out of money received by any of schools. personal use of Rs. 1 lakh was out of unaccounted money of trust and not fund of any school. Further donations are accounted for only in books of trust and therefore misuse of same, if any, is out of trust money. Therefore, question of violation of s. 13(1)(c) does not arise. only reasons which remains is that, there was surplus of receipt over expenditure which, in our opinion, by itself cannot be ground for rejecting claim under s. 10(22) of Act as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Aditanar Educational Institution vs. Addl. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 7: (1997) 224 ITR 310 (SC). relevant observations of Their Lordships are quoted below: "After meeting expenditure, if any surplus results incidentally from activity lawfully carried on by educational institution, it will not cease to be one existing solely for educational purposes since object is not one to make profit. decisive or acid test is whether on overall view of matter, object is to make profit. In evaluating or appraising above, one should also bear in mind distinction/difference between corpus, objects and powers of concerned entity. following decisions are relevant in this context: Governing Body of Rangaraya Medical College vs. ITO (1979) 117 ITR 284 (AP) and Secondary Board of Education vs. ITO (1972) 86 ITR 408 (Ori)." In view of above discussion, we are of view that claim of assessee under s. 10(22) of Act, vis-a-vis schools run by it has been rejected on irrelevant factors. Consequently, we hold that assessee was entitled to exemption in respect of income of each school. exemption would be denied only with respect to other income of assessee society. Accordingly, we hold that assessee society as such is not entitled to exemption under s. 10(22) of Act in respect of asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990- 91 but income of each school would qualify for exemption as there is nothing on record to show that income of any of such schools was utilized for any purpose other than purpose of education. At this stage, we may mention that mere surplus would not disqualify for claiming exemption under s. 10(22) in view of Supreme Court judgment in case of Aditanar Educational Society (supra). In view of above discussion, we uphold common order of learned CIT(A), dt. 24th Jan., 1993 on issue of exemption under s. 10(22). common order of learned CIT(A) dt. 16th Dec., 1996 is, however, set aside on this issue and consequently, AO is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with findings given in this order. next question for our consideration is whether assessee was entitled to exemption under s. 11 of Act in respect of asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990-91. Since it has been found that office bearers/members of assessee society were obtaining personal benefits out of unaccounted donations, there is violation of provisions of s. 13(1)(c) of Act. Hence, exemption under s. 11 of Act also cannot be allowed for these years. We may clarify that learned CIT(A) had not adjudicated issue regarding exemption under s. 11 in his order dt. 16th Dec., 1996 but no purpose would be served in remanding issue of learned CIT(A) since it has been proved on record that personal benefit had been obtained by trustees/members of assessee society. Accordingly, AO would pass appropriate orders considering that assessee trust is not entitled to exemption under s. 11 of Act in respect of these two years. Now we proceed to adjudicate remaining issues in respect of various additions/disallowances. first issue relates to assessment of donations as income. In ground No. 6, it has been mentioned that donations received were voluntary donations towards corpus and, therefore, could not be considered as income under s. 2(24) of Act. No serious argument was made by learned counsel for assessee in this regard. No evidence was ever produced to prove that donations were made towards corpus. Therefore, donations even assuming to be voluntarily made have to be treated as income of assessee under s. 2(24) of Act. Regarding other additions made on account of unaccounted payments, no arguments were made on behalf of assessee. Accordingly, common order of learned CIT(A) dt. 24th Jan., 1993 is upheld. As far as common order of learned CIT(A) dt. 16th Dec., 1996 is concerned, same cannot be upheld as it has been held by us that assessee i n neither entitled to exemption under s. 10(22) nor under s. 11 of Act. To that extent, order of learned CIT(A) cannot be sustained. Now we take up additions made by AO on various accounts. Firstly, we take up addition of Rs. 15 lakhs made on account of profit on sale of uniform, note books, ties, badges, etc. This addition has been made in asst. yr. 1990-91 on ground that assessee might have collected money from students on account of sale of uniform, note books, ties, badges, etc., in similar manner as done in case of St. Xavier Educational Trust. However, learned CIT(A) has deleted same for reasons given by him in his order in case of St. Xavier Educational Trust. It is pertinent to note that same AO has given finding of fact in para 7 of assessment order for asst. yr. 1989-90 that no such collection was made by assessee on account of sale of uniform, note books, ties, badges, etc., and accordingly, no addition was made in that year. Therefore, it appears that addition in asst. yr. 1990-91, has been made merely on basis of surmises and conjectures which is not permissible in law. No evidence has been brought on record to prove that any such activity was carried on by assessee. Since addition has been made on mere surmises, same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we hold that learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting addition though for different reasons. next issue relates to addition of Rs. 2.99 lakhs on account of unaccounted payments to Mr. Champaklal Dave in asst. yr. 1989-90. This addition has been confirmed by learned CIT(A). In absence of any arguments, order of learned CIT(A) is upheld on this issue. other additions made by AO on account of payments to Mr. Balan and M/s Poonam Investment Co. (P) Ltd. were not adjudicated by learned CIT(A) on ground that these issues were sub judice before Tribunal in first round of litigation. Since assessee has not argued on these issues, no purpose would be served for sending matter back to file of learned CIT(A). Thus, these additions stand confirmed. In view of above discussions, common order of learned CIT(A) dt. 16th Dec., 1996 is partially set aside and consequently AO is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with observations made by us in this order. Now we take up appeal for asst. yr. 1991-92. In this year, there is no adverse material against assessee. claim of assessee has simply been rejected following orders of earlier years. Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Aditanar Educational Institution (supra) has held that expenditure under s. 10(22) has to be examined for each year independently. It has also been held that where only object of trust is spreading of education then t h e trust itself should be considered as educational institution. only allegation against assessee was that, trustees were getting remuneration of Rs. 1,37,227. This allegation has been found to be incorrect by learned CIT(A) and there is no appeal on this point by Revenue. Thus, such finding of fact recorded by learned CIT(A) has become final and therefore it cannot be said that there was any violation of s. 13. In these circumstances, question is whether it can be said that assessee existed for profit. In our opinion, answer is "No" in view of decision of Tribunal in case of Nopany Education Trust vs. Addl. Director of IT (Exemption) (2005) 92 TTJ (Kol)(TM) 1143: (2005) 93 ITD 152 (Kol)(TM), wherein it has been held that so long as profits are applied for educational purpose and not for personal benefit of trustees, claim under s. 10(22) cannot be denied. Therefore, in absence of any adverse material relating to asst. yr. 1991-92, it is held that assessee was entitled to exemption under s. 10(22) of Act. As there was no contravention of s. 13 of Act, it was also entitled to exemption under s. 11 of Act. Hence, entire income of institution was exempt from taxation. We hold accordingly. order of learned CIT(A) dt. 17th Dec., 1996 is, therefore, upheld. In result, assessee s appeals in ITA Nos. 2381 and 2382/Bom/1993 are dismissed. Revenue s appeals in ITA Nos. 1752 and 1754/Mum/1997 are partly allowed and Revenue s appeal in ITA Nos. 1753/Mum/1997 is dismissed. *** ST. LAWRENCE EDUCATION SOCIETY v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)