Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal, vs. Sarvajanik Jankalyan Parmarthk Nyas,

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT is in contravention to Section 143 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; erstwhile section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 particularly considering that the assessee did not express a desire to cross- examine the witnesses during the assessment proceedings?

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 Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act?

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT overlooked the chronology of events leading to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court. These events clearly demonstrate the commercial intentions of the assessee group, which are further conclusively substantiated by the findings from the TDS Survey?

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 while being registered as charitable trust u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 merely on the grounds that the Medical Council of India (MCI) found no infirmity or irregularity regarding functioning of the medical institutions run by the assessee and the Hon'ble High Court has passed the directions to undo the irregularities ignoring the fact that 3

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in treating the guideline value as the market value of the land exchanged between Sarvajanik Jankalyan Parmarthik Nyas, Bhopal and Shri S. N. Vijaywargiya in light of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Sai Bharathi vs. J. Jayalalitha & Ors. On 24 November, 2003 (SLP 477 of 2002) and Jaw Ajee Naganatham vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 25 January, 1994 [1994 SCR (1) 368]?

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in allowing the benefits of Section 11 & 12 to the assessee in the concerned Assessment Years and thus deleting the addition of Rs. 4,06,24,367/- Rs. 14,08,66,035/-, Rs. 16,15,09,294/- and Rs. 12,25,29,221/- for AY 2005-06, AY 2007-08, AY 2008-09 and AY 2010-11 respectively?

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in allowing the carry forward of losses in spite of the fact that the assessee is claiming to be a trust and not a business concern and claiming of losses infers self- admitted fact that the assessee proclaims itself as a business entity rather than a charitable trust?

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in adjudicating the addition of Rs. 8.65 crores on account of capitation fees received in lieu of providing admissions at Peoples Medical College pertaining to AY 2006-07 and addition of Rs. 30 lacs pertaining to on-money payment for purchase of immovable property pertaining to AY 2009-10 while the issues are currently pending before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)?

In short, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether this appeal involves any substantial question of law, as is required 4

Now, being aggrieved by the order dated 31.1.2024 passed by the learned I.T.A.T. Indore, the Revenue is before this Court in the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned I.T.A.T. has erred in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent/assessee and has preferred this appeal by formulating the aforesaid substantial questions of law. On the aforesaid ground, it is a fit case to be entertained. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ assessee contended that no substantial question of law is made out so as to entertain this appeal. He further brought to the notice of this Court the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Special Appeal (W) No.128/2012 – Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. Geetanjali University Trust, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.2.2013 wherein identical 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. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the substantial questions of law. 11. 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.

From a bare reading of the Section, it is apparent that an appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Tribunal lies only when a substantial question of law is involved, and where the High Court comes to the conclusion that a substantial question of law arises from the said order, it is mandatory that such question(s) must be formulated. The expression "substantial question of law" is not defined in the Act. Nevertheless, it has acquired a definite connotation through various judicial pronouncements. 7

While explaining the import of the said expression, the Apex Court in case of Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons, Ltd. Vs. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314, observed that: "6. The proper test for determining whether a question of law 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."

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 before it are concerned. To be a question of law "involving in the case" there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case, or not; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis."

In Hero Vinoth (Minor) Vs. Seshamma, (2006) 5 SCC 545, the Apex Court has observed that: 8

A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence, or when the evidence has been misread. (See: Madan Lal Vs. Mst. Gopi and Anr. (1980) 4 SCC 255; Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi Vs. Rajat Vidyarthi, (2009) 3 SCC 287; Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs. Vijay Dasharath Patel (2007) 4 SCC 118; Metroark Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta (2004) 12 SCC 505; West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs. CESC Ltd. (2002) 8 SCC 715). 17. The Apex Court in case of K.Ravindranathan Nair vs. CIT,

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 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 taking into consideration all the material available on record. The Tribunal being a final fact finding authority, in the absence of demonstrated perversity in its finding, interference with the concurrent findings of the CIT (A) as well as the ITAT therewith by this Court is not warranted. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, we have no hesitation in holding that no question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal requiring consideration of this court. There is no merit in the appeal as making addition/deletion cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Thus, in our opinion, the present case does not involve any substantial question of law so as to meet the provisions of Section 260(A) of the Act for admitting the appeal. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which in our opinion deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE JUDGE HEMANT SARAF 2025.01.17 17:57:51 +05'30' 10