IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO I.T.T.A. No. 472 of 2014 Date: 30.07.2014 Between:
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad.
… Appellant And M/s. Prathima Educational Society, Hyderabad.
… Respondent This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO I.T.T.A. No. 472 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against the judgment and order dated 08.11.2013 of the learned Tribunal in relation to the assessment year 2003-04 on the following suggested question of law.
“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in holding that the registration granted to the society u/s 12AA cannot be cancelled, especially when there were incriminating documents indicating collection of fees for admission under management quota over and above the prescribed fee and also when on similar facts they had confirmed the order of CIT canceling the registration in cases of some other society when the said order were also passed on the same date?
2. Whether the ITAT was justified in canceling the order of CIT without examining the facts of the case on merit when on similar fact the order of CIT was confirmed in the case of two other societies where registration was cancelled on the same date based on similar facts and circumstances?”
The learned Tribunal has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who cancelled the registration granted under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Cancellation was made based on collection of certain material, which shows that the respondent educational institution runs contrary to the charitable activities. Learned Tribunal on appreciation of fact found that the seized material was sufficient for cancellation of the registration.
We have seen the order of the Commissioner and the learned Tribunal. We feel that the learned Tribunal came to the fact finding on appreciation of fact that there was enough material to withdraw the registration. Hence, we cannot interfere with the said fact finding. No element of law is involved in this appeal for decision of this Court.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
Date: 30.07.2014 ES