9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en into consideration or legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence, or when the evidence has been misread. As in the instant case no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal as the appellant has raised all the question of facts and have disputed the fact findings of the ITAT in the garb of substantial questions of law which is not permitted by the statute itself. This Court refrains from entertaining this appeal as there is no perversity in the order passed by the ITAT since the ITAT has dealt with all the grounds raised by the appellant in the order impugned and has passed a well reasoned and speaking order. Appeal dismissed as No substantial question of law arises. - HON BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI And HON BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA Shri Siddharth Sharma learned counsel for the appellant Shri Sumit Nema learned Senior counsel with Shri Ayush Gupta counsel for the respohndent ORDER This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari passed the following order : Heard on I.A.No.21045/2024, which is an application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust, which states To pursue any other objectives as may be approved by the Sponsoring Body (Sarvajanik Jankalyan Parmarthik Nyas, Bhopal). This clause is problematic as it allows any activity sanctioned by the Sponsoring Body rather than the University s Governing Body. Furthermore, this clause could permit activities that are not charitable in nature. This is in contravention to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, the assessee is not eligible for registration u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (5) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble ITAT has justified the illicit activities done by the assessee, when the Hon ble M.P. High Court in order dated 24.02.2006 (Writ Petition No. 12623, 12694 12946 / 2005) decided against the assessee and observed that the college had acted arbitrarily in denying the admissions to the students of state quota in MBBS/BDS Course, they have been wrongfully deprived of the admissions in the aforesaid case. There were many such observations made by the Hon ble High Court after conducting a thorough enquiry. Thus, the activities of the assessee cannot be said to be charitable within the meaning of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dentical substantial questions of law were considered and rejected. The issue in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Geetanjali University Trust (supra), therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the substantial questions of law. 9. Before dealing with the aforesaid controversy, it would be expedient to refer to Section 260-A of the Act of 1961. The provisions, relevant for our purpose, read thus: 260-A. Appeal to High Court - (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or Commission or an assessee aggrieved by any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court and such appeal under this subsection shall be (a) filed within one hundred and twenty days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the assessee or the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; (b) x ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest Court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law. 12. Similarly, in Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 it was observed that: A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be substantial a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, AIR 1962 SC 1314 (2001) 3 SCC 179 and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of K.Ravindranathan Nair vs. CIT, (2001) 1 SCC 135 has observed as under : The High Court overlooked the cardinal principle that it is the Tribunal which is the final fact finding authority. A decision on fact of the Tribunal can be gone into by the High Court only if a question has been referred to it which says that the finding of the Tribunal on facts is perverse, in the sense that it is such as could not reasonably have been arrived at on the material placed before the Tribunal. In this case, there was no such question before the High Court. Unless and until a finding of fact reached by the Tribunal is canvassed before the High Court in the manner set out above, the High Court is obliged to proceed upon the findings of fact reached by the Tribunal and to give an answer in law to the question of law that is before it. 16. When tested on the anvil of the afore-noted legal principles, we are of the opinion that in the instant case no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal as the appellant has raised all the question of facts and have disputed the fact findings of the ITAT in the garb of substantial questions of law which is not permitted by the statute i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
