JUDGMENT

B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. : All the above seven appeals have been filed by the appellant under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “I.T. Act, 1961”) challenging the common order dated 27.07.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribu¬nal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (for short, ‘the I.T.A.T.’) in IT (SS) A Nos.39 to 45/CTK/2008 pertaining to assessment years 2000-2001 to 2006-2007.

2. All these appeals have been admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law.

(i) Whether in absence of warrant in the name of an assessee the search conducted in its premises is a valid search as contemplat¬ed under Section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?

(ii) Whether initiation of a valid search as contemplated under Section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in case of a person is a pre-requisite to issue notice for making assessment/reassessment under Section 153 A of the I.T. Act, 1961 in respect of such person ?

(iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. is justified in remanding the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to adjudicate on a question of law raised before it instead of deciding the issue itself ?

3. Since appellants are the same and common questions of law are involved in all the appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

4. The short facts leading to the present appeals are that the appellant-Siksha “O” Anusandhan (for short “the Society”) is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It was created for charitable purpose to impart technical educa¬tion. Accordingly, an Engineering College known as I.T.E.R. and other educational institutions have been established in Bhubanes¬war. The Society has been conferred upon the upon the status of “Deemed University” by the University Grants Commission. The appellant Society got registered under Section 12-A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The appellant has been assessed as a charitable Socie¬ty by the Assessing Authority on its returned income. According to the appellant, pursuant to two search warrants issued in the name of Dr. Manoj Ranjan Nayak, search and seizure operations were carried out in the residential premises of Dr. Manoj Ranjan Nayak, the President of the Society at 195, Dharma Vihar, Khanda¬giri, Bhubaneswar and at 224 Dharma Vihar, Khandagiri, Bhubanes¬war on 09.08.2005 and 10.08.2005. In course of search, the au¬thorized officer seized the books of accounts, documents etc. of the appellant Society from 224, Dharma Vihar, Bhubaneswar. Pursu¬ant to such search and seizure operations, assessment proceedings under Section 153 A of the I.T. Act, 1961 were initiated against the appellant and a tax demand of Rs.15,35,75,989/- was raised for the seven assessment years, i.e., 2000-2001 to 2006-2007. the appellant challenged the assessment orders passed under Section 153 A of the I.T. Act, 1961 by filing appeals before the Commis¬sioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short, ‘CIT (A)”] and having unsuccessful before said forum, it preferred appeals before the I.T.A.T. Before the learned I.T.A.T., the appellant raised an additional ground that as no search warrant was served on the appellant, proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 are not legal. The learned I.T.A.T. by the impugned order remitted the matters to the CIT (A) with a direction to first decide the additional ground raised by the assessee in accordance with law and, if required, the other grounds on merit after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5. Mr. S. Ray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is totally erroneous, illegal and irrational. Relying on the provisions of Section 132(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with Form 45 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (for short “the Rules”) he argued that the main purpose of Section 132(1) of the I.T. Act., 1961 is to unearth the undisclosed income. A search operation ca