9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to the facts of the case referred by this Court, since in this case the society has failed to produce any supporting evidence for carrying out any charitable activities for the purpose of public at large. The further ground raised by the petitioner is that subsection (1) (A) of Section 12AA of the Act provides that the CIT "shall call for such documents or information from the trust or institution as he thinks necessary or order to satisfy himself about the genuineness of activities of the trust of institution and may also make such inquiries as he may deem necessary in this behalf. The genuineness of the activities of the trust as charitable in nature was not proved by the assessee since the assessee failed to produce books of accounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 7. It appears that the 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. 8. 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. (See: Meera Bhanjan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
