2019 (3) TMI 1661 - HC - Income Tax

Review petition - Registration u/s 12AA - society has failed to produce any supporting evidence for carrying out any charitable activities for the purpose of public at large - According to the petitioner the charitable activity claimed to have been carried on is basically holding of a camp for promoting Urologists so that more and more patients visit these Urologists and the assessee-society is found to be basically in the nature of club of Urologists Doctors for the mutual benefit of Doctors who are the members of the society - HELD THAT - On consideration of the above-stated grounds which are in the nature of taking liberty to re-argue the case are unsustainable in the eyes of law. The petitioner cannot be allowed to commit a volte-face and take up new pleas in review petition. There is no other ground pointed out by the petitioner showing any manifest error on the record and has not further brought into the notice any new facts which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioner. It is well settled principles of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution the petitioner has not produced any ground for review. Petitioner by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition which is not permissible and tenable in law. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition the petitioner should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Limitation of filing review petition
2. Grounds for seeking review
3. Failure to produce supporting evidence for charitable activities
4. Nature of activities carried out by the society
5. Scope of review petition
6. Permissibility of re-arguing the case in review petition

Analysis:
1. The judgment highlighted that the review petition was barred by a limitation of 271 days, and no application for condonation of delay was filed. This aspect was crucial in determining the admissibility of the review petition.

2. The petitioner sought a review of the order based on grounds that the facts of the case were different from those relied upon in previous judgments. The petitioner argued that the society failed to produce supporting evidence for carrying out charitable activities, which was essential for the case.

3. The petitioner also raised concerns regarding the failure to prove the genuineness of charitable activities, as required by subsection (1) (A) of Section 12AA of the Act. The petitioner emphasized the lack of production of books of accounts and highlighted discrepancies in the activities of the society.

4. It was noted that the charitable activity claimed by the society was primarily holding camps for promoting Urologists, raising questions about the true nature of the activities and the beneficiaries involved.

5. The judgment emphasized that review proceedings are not meant to re-argue a case or introduce new pleas. The petitioner's attempt to bring new arguments in the review petition was deemed unsustainable and against the legal principles governing review petitions.

6. The court reiterated that the scope of a review petition is limited and should not be used as a platform to argue the entire case afresh. Citing various legal precedents, the judgment emphasized the need to adhere to the specific scope and purpose of review petitions.

Overall, the judgment dismissed the review petition due to the lack of substantive grounds and the attempt to re-argue the case under the guise of a review petition, which was deemed impermissible under the legal framework governing review proceedings.