JUDGMENT 1. This is a reference application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jabalpur, for calling for a reference from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. A notice of this application was given to the other side. The following two questions have been framed by the Revenue : " (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 263 in respect of an order passed by the Income-tax Officer in pursuance of the direction by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of Section 10(22A) applied to the facts of the case ?" 2. The brief facts giving rise to this application for reference are that the assessee is assessed to tax in the status of an association of persons. It is running a hospital, namely, Christian Fellowship Hospital, Rajnan-dgaon. The Income-tax Officer assessed the total income of the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1978-79, at Rs. 1,43,327. The assessee filed a return showing income from business of Rs, 73,355 and claimed exemption on the ground that the entire income was utilised for charitable and religious purposes in India. The assessee claimed that income from tyre retreading business, agriculture and poultry farming, hire charges from the tractor are exempted as the same are the income of the hospital. The assessee claimed that the entire income was exempt under Section 10(22A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer rejected the contention raised by the assessee and since the variation of the income exceeded rupees one lakh, he forwarded the draft assessment order to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144B of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,43,327. He, however, accepted the loss of the assessee in agriculture and allowed the same to be carried forward to be considered against the income from the same in the succeeding year. The assessment was made by the Income-tax Officer on August 12, 1981. 3. Against the order of the Income-tax Officer, the assessee went up in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jabalpur. The assessment was made by the Income-tax Officer on August 12, 1981. 3. Against the order of the Income-tax Officer, the assessee went up in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jabalpur. During the pendency of the appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax initiated proceedings under Section 263 of the Act of 1961 on the ground that the Income-tax Officer should have disallowed Rs. 17,487 out of the salary payments which were made to the members of the society out of the total claim made by the assessee at Rs. 67,427 ; the Income-tax Officer should have disallowed the disallowable expenses out of the expenses claimed under the head "Major repairs", and, details of income derived from running of the tractor, details of income and expenditure in poultry and dairy farming were not called for. It was observed that the Income-tax Officer failed to call for the details of receipt and expenditure in agriculture account. Therefore, in these circumstances, a notice under Section 263 of the Act was given by the Commissioner of Income-tax and in pursuance of that notice, the assessee filed a reply and, ultimately, the Commissioner of Income-tax set aside the order of the Income-tax Officer and directed the Income-tax Officer to redetermine the income keeping in view the observations made by the Commissioner of Income-tax. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated August 8, 1983, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal reversed the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax and held that the assessee-institution is basically meant for philanthropic purposes and not for the purposes of profit and the income being not diverted for the benefit of any private person, the assessee is entitled to the total exemption under Section 10(22A) of the Act. The Tribunal also held that the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction under Section 263 to interfere in this matter as the same had been decided by the Income-tax Officer under Section 144B of the Act. Hence, the Revenue has approached this court by filing the present application for calling reference under Section 256(2) of the Act of 1961. 5. We need not to go into details of the matter. Suffice it to say that only two questions have been raised by the Revenue for our answer. Hence, the Revenue has approached this court by filing the present application for calling reference under Section 256(2) of the Act of 1961. 5. We need not to go into details of the matter. Suffice it to say that only two questions have been raised by the Revenue for our answer. So far as the first question whether the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Act has jurisdiction to interfere with the order which has been passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144B or not, is concerned, this question has already been answered by this court in the case of C1T v. Vithal Textiles [1989] 175 ITR 629 and in another case of CIT v. Dulichand Bhatia [1989] 175 ITR 634. Both these cases have taken into consideration the Explanation added to Section 263(1). In the newly inserted Explanation, it is clearly provided that for purposes of this sub-section, an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall include an order of assessment made on the basis of the directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 144A or Section 144B. Therefore, in view of this Explanation and the decisions of this court, this question already stands decided in favour of the Revenue. 6. So far as the second question is concerned in view of an order passed by the Tribunal for extending the benefit of Section 10(22A) of the Act to the assessee, suffice it to say that it is essentially a question of fact. The assessee-institution is purely a philanthropic institution as is apparent from the finding given by the Commissioner of Income-tax in an appeal filed by the institution for the assessment year 1970-71, The Commissioner of Income-tax while exercising the power under Section 263 of the Act has made a reference to certain articles of association and has come to the conclusion that this institution is only meant for the benefit of the Christian community and not for all ; but this has not been found so by the Appellate Commissioner in appeal by the assessee for 1970-71 and on the basis of the same memorandum and articles of association, the finding has been given that the institution not only caters for the Christian community but caters to the need of all persons from all communities. Therefore, this finding has become final and it was not open for the Commissioner to have taken a different view in the matter. The Tribunal has examined the matter and has found that the assessee-institution is solely philanthropic institution and it is not a partly philanthropic institution for a particular community. The Tribunal has also placed reliance on certain certificates/ letters issued by the Collector as well as by the civil surgeons and other persons. On the basis of this material, the Tribunal has found that the institution is solely meant for philanthropic purposes and as such in view of this finding of fact, we are of the opinion that this case does not call for any interference for directing the Tribunal to make a reference to this court. There is no merit in this reference application and the same, is rejected.