JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman J.-The assessee is on appeal as against common order passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal relating to assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. There were six appeals before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, out of which five were by Revenue and one by assessee. Following are questions of law raised by assessee in Tax Case (Appeal) No. 35 of 2014. "1. Whether Tribunal was right in not adjudicating specific issue raised by Revenue questioning decision of Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) that income from letting out property should be treated as business income or income from property for purpose of invoking section 11 of Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether Tribunal was right in holding that matter should be remanded to files of Assessing Officer to examine nature of activity and its income derived as incidental to objects of assessee or as separate business for purpose of section 11 and more specifically for section 11(4A)? 3. Whether income earned from letting out of property is taxed as business income for purpose of invoking section 11 of Income-tax Act, 1961?" assessee herein is charitable institution granted registration under section 12AA of Income-tax Act, 1961. society was formed to provide education, medical relief to poor and objects of general public utility. It is stated that it is running lodging accommodations at two places and has large auditorium for conducting functions at Vepery and one such small auditorium is at Esplanade and large ground at Royapettah, which has commercial value to be let out for public functions, exhibitions, etc. society maintains swimming pool, recreation centres and gymnasium. Two schools and home were formed and maintained for deprived children. Relief activities in times of flood and other natural calamities are also being carried out by society. auditorium and hall are let out to members and non-members. Rooms are also let out to members and non-members, which included providing of food. Assessing Officer held that assessee was carrying on business activities. As regards letting out of auditorium at Vepery, hall at Esplanade, ground at Royapettah, letting of rooms at Royapettah and Vepery society was charging rent and as well as for providing food and beverages to persons, who were occupying such rooms. When assessee was questioned about nature of receipts, assessee took contention that income from these activities was not business income but income from property. assessee placed reliance on decision of this court in CIT v. Sri Rao Baghadur ADK Dharmaraja Educational Charity Trust [2008] 300 ITR 365 (Mad) as well as CIT v. Krishna Tent House [2002] 121 Taxman 717 (P&H), apart from Addl. CIT. v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC) on aspect of utilisation of income for charitable purpose and, hence, exempted from section 11 of Income-tax Act, 1961. contention of assessee was, however, rejected holding view that letting out of hall and open space and hiring out rooms amounted to business and, hence, income therefrom were assessable as business income. Referring to section 11(4A) of Income-tax Act, 1961, Assessing Officer viewed that any business activity conducted by assessee would result in losing of benefit under section 11(1), (2), (3) and (3A) of Act unless separate books of account were maintained. Going by requirement of section 11(4A) of Income-tax Act, 1961, Assessing Officer viewed that assessee would be ineligible for exemption under sections 11 and 12 of Incometax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by this assessment, assessee went on appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who agreed with assessee that receipts from letting off of rooms and auditorium constitute income from house property. Referring to objects of trust and section 11(4A) of Act Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that there was no violation of provisions of Act to deny exemption under section 11 of Act. Considering objects of society, viz,, maintaining centres, hostels, boarding houses, tourist homes, etc., owning of property and receiving rental incomes by letting out same constituted income of assessee from house property. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further viewed that letting out of property to members and non-members could not be treated as business activity. guests are permitted to avail of facilities of organisation and, therefore, so-called members, who availed of services of society through introduction of members as guests of members, who are treated as temporary members and same could not constitute business activity. Thus, aggrieved by order of Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals), directing Assessing Officer to grant benefit under section 11 of Income-tax Act, 1961, Revenue went on appeal before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. On consideration of merits of case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that question as to whether assessee was earning income as incidental to activities of society or whether assessee was engaged really in business activity was required to be examined by Assessing Officer. This is more so, in context of section 11(4A) of Act. In circumstances, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal felt that since lower authorities had not examined issue as to whether earning of income was incidental to objects or whether it was separate business carried on by assessee, it held that matter deserved to be remitted back to Assessing Officer to examine afresh in all these aspects. Aggrieved by such order, assessee is on appeal before us. Learned counsel for assessee submitted that although strictly speaking, assessee is not against remand order, his only anxiety is that Tribunal having not considered view of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that income earned was income from house property and remand order had not referred to this but ordered open remand, such open remand will prejudice assessee and, hence, submitted that same may be clarified herein by directing Assessing Officer to consider question as to whether income earned has to be assessed as income from house property or of business income, keeping in mind objects of trust. We find from perusal of order passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that Tribunal itself has pointed out in paragraph 6 of its order that question as to whether assessee was earning this income as incidental to objects of society for purpose of determining this case and in event of Assessing Officer was to hold view that it is incidental to object of assessee, consequence flowing thereon would be in terms of order of Commissioner as Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) himself has felt that this is income from house property. Thus, having gone through order, in order to avoid future controversy arising, we agree with learned counsel submission. Hence, while confirming order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal remanding matter back to Assessing Officer to examine issue afresh, we hold that Assessing Officer shall consider nature of receipts keeping in mind objects of institution to find out as to whether income earned is incidental to objects of association and, hence, income from house property or whether income could only be treated as separate business carried on by assessee. As pointed out by Tribunal, if Assessing Officer has to treat that income earned as only incidental to objects of association, and income from property, then consequences to flow would have to be considered in terms of section 11 of Act. We do not think that we need to elaborate further on this since Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has already considered this in paragraph No. 9 of its order. Except for clarification that we have mentioned above, we do not find any further elaboration is required while confirming order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Consequently, Assessing Officer shall consider case of assessee in context of nature of activity visa-vis objects of trust/association to decide on nature of receipt for purpose of considering assessee's claim under provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961. It is seen that order passed by Tribunal was ex parte order and there was no representation by assessee. Consequently, assessee filed miscellaneous application before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal seeking rectification of order. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal rejected petition holding that there was no mistake apparent on record, which needed rectification. Since said order was only based on remand order to consider whether income is from letting out of property is incidental to objects of Association or altogether separate activity, nothing further need to be seen thereon. Thus, aggrieved by this assessee has filed T. C. (A.) No. 36 of 2014, raising following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether Tribunal was right in not allowing miscellaneous petition filed under section 254(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether Tribunal was right in not adjudicating specific issue raised by Revenue questioning decision of Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) that income from letting out property should be treated as business income or income from property for purpose of invoking section 11 of Income-tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether Tribunal was right in holding that matter should be remanded to files of Assessing Officer to examine nature of activity and its income derived as incidental to objects of assessee or as separate business for purpose of section 11 and more specifically for section 11(4A)? 4. Whether income earned from letting out of property is taxed as business income for purpose of invoking section 11 of Income-tax Act, 1961?" Considering fact that we have confirmed order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in main appeal filed in Tax Case (Appeal) No. 35 of 2014 by making it as open remand, nothing survives in T. C. (A.) No. 36 of 2014 for adjudication. In result, Tax Case (Appeal) No. 35 of 2014 is disposed of and T. C. (A.) No. 36 of 2014 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. *** Young Men's Christian Association v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax