TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 974
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ind/2018 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The following substantial question of law has been proposed in this appeal : "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT overlooked the observations by the AO in para 6.5 (point no. 4) and observed that the assessee was never given opportunity to cross-examine Shri Rajesh Bhalla and held the assessment order in violation of principle of natural justice? 2. 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? 3. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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? 9. 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)? 3. In short, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether this appeal involves any substantial question of law, as is required to be made out under Section 260A of the Act of 1961, that being the prerequisite of admission of the appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee/respondent is a Sarvajanik Jankalyan Parmarthk Nyas and was granted registration under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 17.10.2000 w.e.f. 7.6.199....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ust, 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. (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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pex 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." 14. 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, no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 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, (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. 18. When tested on the anvil of the afore-noted legal principles, we are of the opinion ....