JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by Dr. Vineet Kothari J. This appeal under section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ) has been filed by assessee against appellate order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur allowing Revenue s appeal and remanding case back to first appellate authority, i.e., Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), to decide issue again as to whether there was any misutilisation of funds by trustees or owners of assesseesociety and consequently whether assessee was entitled to exemption from income-tax under section 10(22) of Act. This appeal is for assessment year 1996-97 and learned counsel urged that for preceding assessment year 1995-96 Income-tax Appellate Tribunal itself has decided in favour of assessee that assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(22) of Act and even appeal against said order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was dismissed by this court and said judgment has been reported as Deputy CIT v. Cosmopolitan Education Society [2000] 244 ITR 494 (Raj) and SLP against that judgment of Division Bench has also been dismissed by hon ble Supreme Court as reported in [2000] 241 ITR (St.) 132. same contention was urged before learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also that on basis of exemption given for preceding year under section 10(22) of Act same should be given for present assessment year 1996-97 in question, however, Tribunal found that first appellate authority without giving any details and finding about misutilisation of funds by short and cryptic order found that facts of case in present assessment year 1996-97, are identical to assessment year 1995-96 and, therefore, appeal of assessee was allowed. Tribunal in second appeal, however, found that in absence of any finding about misutilisation of funds for present assessment year 1996-97 by learned Commissioner (Appeals), that first appellate authority should give his findings about same and, therefore, matter was remanded back to learned Commissioner (Appeals). Being aggrieved by said order of remand of learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, assessee has preferred this appeal for assessment year 1996-97 claiming that certain substantial questions of law arise in matter. Section 10(22) of Act which has since been deleted or omitted from statute book with effect from April 1, 1999, provided for exemption from income- tax. Section 10(22) at relevant point of time read as under: 10. (22) any income of university or other educational institution, existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit. With effect from April 1, 1999, i.e., assessment year 1999-2000, this exemption available to educational institution, stands withdrawn and rationale behind such withdrawal lies in wide misuse of such exemption in absence of any monitoring mechanism for checking genuineness of activities of educational institutions claiming such exemption. question whether educational institution existed solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit, is question of fact and every year assessing authority is entitled to examine facts of case as to whether during assessment year in question educational institution existed solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit. It would naturally depend upon fact as to whether expenditure incurred by educational institution is for educational purposes or otherwise or whether profit earned by educational institution has been utilised for purpose of education only or not. Obviously, since exemption from income-tax was granted only if such university or educational institution existed solely for education purposes and not otherwise, this enquiry independently is necessary for every assessment year, before allowing such exemption. assessing authority for assessment year 1996-97 in question had discussed in details as to why he was disallowing exemption under section 10(22) of Act. cursory look of said assessment order would show that sum of Rs. 6,15,115 was even found to be diverted in shape of construction material to be used in residential building of Shri B. D. Singh, trustee of said society. Various other disallowances were made by assessing authority and it was found that they are not expenditure incurred for purposes of school or educational institution. said findings of assessing authority were set aside by short and cryptic order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing assessing authority to exempt income of assessee under section 10(22) of Act. That was not found to be justified by learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and, therefore, Tribunal has remanded case back to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for redeciding issue and give appropriate findings of facts. Without comparing facts of assessment year 1996-97 with facts of previous assessment year 1995-96 learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) could not have mechanically observed that facts were identical to those obtaining in previous assessment year. Since misutilisation of funds is question of fact which may be different in different assessment years this exercise of enquiry for giving findings of facts was necessary at end of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) before bluntly setting aside findings of assessing authority. Having not done so, we find that learned Tribunal was only justified in remanding case back to learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for fresh enquiry. We do not find any substantial question of law arising out of order of Tribunal remanding case back to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as enquiry envisaged for compliance with terms of section 10(22) is still pending before learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upon remand by learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. This cannot be disputed that enquiry for each assessment year is independent and necessary for purposes of grant of exemption under section 10(22) of Act, therefore, submission of learned counsel for assessee that for preceding year such exemption was allowed by Tribunal and was upheld by this court is of no assistance to assessee as far as present assessment year 1996-97 is concerned. Allowing assessee s appeal merely following decision of Tribunal as upheld by this court for immediately preceding year without allowing first appellate authority to undertake such enquiry to give findings of facts would not, in our opinion, subserve purpose of section 10(22) of Act. It is also well-settled that each assessment year in income- tax assessment proceedings is independent and principles of res judicata do not apply to income-tax proceedings. Therefore, we do not find any substantial question of law to be arising out of order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by which it has merely remanded back case, setting aside short and cryptic order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), for redetermination of facts and return appropriate findings of facts. Accordingly, this appeal, in our opinion, has no force and same is hereby dismissed. *** COSMOPOLITAN EDUCATION SOCIETY v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX