Judgment :- N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our consideration under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), in relation to the assessment of its income for the asst. yr. 1978-79, "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT was right in assuming the jurisdiction under s. 263 and exercising it?" 2. The assessee is a charitable trust running some educational institutions. The assessee filed its nil return for the asst. yr. 1978-79. The ITO determined the income as per the income and expenditure statement and the balance sheet and declared the assessee as not liable to tax. The CIT, Madurai, in exercising his powers conferred upon him under s. 263 of the Act revised the order of the ITO on the ground that the claim for exemption of the assessee should be tested with reference to s. 13(1)(bb) of the Act and the claim of exemption under s. 10(22) of the Act was not at all taken before the ITO at the time of assessment proceedings. The CIT, therefore, set aside the order of the ITO with a direction to the ITO to pass a fresh order after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to put forth the claim for exemption under s. 11 of the Act and also under s. 10(22) of the Act. The Tribunal, on appeal by the assessee, held that the CIT has rightly assumed his jurisdiction and he was justified in setting aside the order of assessment. The assessee has challenged the order of the Tribunal and the question of law earlier set out has been referred to for our consideration. 3. We are of the opinion that the CIT was not correct in holding that the claim for exemption of the assessee has to be decided with reference to s. 13(1)(bb) of the Act. We have seen the order of assessment passed by the ITO. It is not clear from the order of the ITO what is the provision of law under which he granted exemption. The ITO should have given reasons for the grant of exemption. Since he has failed to do so, the CIT proceeded on the basis that the assessee had not claimed exemption under s. 10(22) of the Act. It is not clear from the order of the ITO what is the provision of law under which he granted exemption. The ITO should have given reasons for the grant of exemption. Since he has failed to do so, the CIT proceeded on the basis that the assessee had not claimed exemption under s. 10(22) of the Act. Whatever may be, when the assessee claimed exemption under s. 10(22) of the Act before the CIT at the time of exercise of his revisional powers, he should have examined the question whether the claim of the assessee under s. 10(22) of the Act was justified or not. The Tribunal, though upheld the order of the CIT, did not decide the eligibility of the assessee's claim for exemption under s. 10(22) of the Act. However, the assessee's claim for exemption under s. 10(22) of the Act for an earlier asst. yr. 1978-79 and for a subsequent asst. yr. 1982-83 was examined by the Tribunal and that order of the Tribunal was the subject-matter of tax case reference in Tax Case Nos. 842 and 843 of 1991 [reported as CIT vs. Kshatriya Girls' School Management Board]. The Tribunal referred to its earlier order for the asst. yrs. 1979-80, 1977-78, 1980-81 and 1981-82 and held that the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of exemption under s. 10(22) of the Act. That order of the Tribunal rendered for the asst. yrs. 1978-79 and 1982-83, as already noticed, was the subject-matter of Tax Case Nos. 842 and 843 of 1991 since reported as CIT vs. Kshatriya Girls School Management Board (supra), and we have by judgment of even date upheld the view of the Tribunal holding that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 10(22) of the Act. 4. In view of our judgment in Tax Case Nos. 842 and 843 of 1991 of even date, we must hold that there are no errors in the order of the ITO granting exemption and when the order is not erroneous, it cannot be a subject-matter of revision under s. 263 of the Act by the CIT. Therefore, there is no case for revision and the order of the Tribunal upholding the order of the CIT on the question of jurisdiction is also not sustainable. 5. Therefore, there is no case for revision and the order of the Tribunal upholding the order of the CIT on the question of jurisdiction is also not sustainable. 5. Accordingly, we answer the question of law referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.