Radhakrishnan, J.

These appeals arise out of a common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA.No.278/Coch/95 and connected matters. Respondent assessee is a hospital run by a charitable trust. In response to notice under section 148 dated 19-7-1991 the assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1989-90 on 20-09-91 declaring nill income. Return was posted for evidence. Assessee claimed that the it is a charitable hospital solely existing for philanthropic purposes and not for the purpose of profit and as such is fully exempt from tax under section 10(22A) of the I.T. Act. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this court in CIT v. Pulikkal Medical Foundation (P) Ltd., (1994) 210 ITR 299. Assessing authority noticed that the facts in Pulikkal Medical Foundation’s case and the assessee’s case are entirely different and took the view that the assessee is conducting the hospital on commercial lines and consequently not entitled to get exemption under section 10(22A) of the Act. It was also noticed that the assessee hospital is fully managed by a family trust which was not registered under section 12A of the I.T. Act. It was also noticed that the total expenses including free treatment is nominal when compared to total hospital collections. It was also noticed that the assessee had made substantial profit during the years in question. Assessment was accordingly completed rejecting the assessee’s claim for exemption under section 10 (22A) of the Act.

2. Assessee took up the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals. Appeal was allowed following the decision of this court in Pulikkal Medical Foundation’s case. Commissioner tool the view that the assessee had satisfied all the conditions for claiming exemption under section 10(22A) of the I.T. Act. Revenue took up the matter in appeal before Tribunal. Tribunal rejected the appeal, against which these appeals have been preferred.

3. Sri.P.K. Raveendranatha Menon, Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue supported the order of the Income – tax Officer and submitted that since the hospital is functioning on commercial lines, the assessee is not entitled to get exemption under section 10(22A) of the Act. Counsel submitted that the decision of this in Pulikkal Medical Foundation’s case would not apply to the facts of this case.

4. Sri.K.V. Pandalai, appearing for the assessee on the other hand contended that the mere fact that hospital runs on commercial lines does not mean that the object of the trust is not charitable. Counsel also submitted that the income and expenditure statement would indicate that the excess of income over expenditure comes to Rs.1,21,101/- for the year 1989-90 and income for the purpose of income tax was computed at Rs.1,58,368/- and the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 11 also under section 10(22A) of the I.T. Act. Counsel submitted that the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal are justified in interfering with the order passed by the assessing authority.

5. The question as to whether the institution is entitled to get exemption under section 10(22A) of the Act would depend upon the fact whether the institution exists solely for charitable purposes or not. In Pulikkal Foundation’s case the court held that the real test is to find out the dominant or primary purpose of the institution. If the primary purpose is philanthropic, the inclusion of some objects for earning profit for the implementation of the primary objects would not alter the character of that primary object. In the case, the assessee satisfied all the conditions for claiming exemption under section 10(22A) of the Act. So far as this case is concerned, in our view, there is no proper factual foundation to decide whether the institution exists solely for philanthropic purposes and not for purposes of profit. No finding has been recorded as to the manner in which and for what purpose the profits were appropriated and the