Itta/472/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) v. M/S Prathima Educational Society

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH 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 SENGUPTAANDTHE 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 thejudgment and order dated 08.11.2013 of the learned Tribunal in relation tothe assessment year 2003-04 on the following suggested question of law. “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case theITAT was justified in holding that the registration granted to thesociety u/s 12AA cannot be cancelled, especially when there wereincriminating documents indicating collection of fees for admissionunder management quota over and above the prescribed fee and also whenon similar facts they had confirmed the order of CIT canceling theregistration in cases of some other society when the said order were alsopassed on the same date? 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in canceling the order of CITwithout examining the facts of the case on merit when on similar fact theorder of CIT was confirmed in the case of two other societies whereregistration was cancelled on the same date based on similarfacts and circumstances?” The learned Tribunal has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who cancelled the registration granted under Section12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Cancellation was made based oncollection of certain material, which shows that the respondent educationalinstitution runs contrary to the charitable activities. Learned Tribunal onappreciation of fact found that the seized material was sufficient forcancellation of the registration. We have seen the order of the Commissioner and the learnedTribunal. We feel that the learned Tribunal came to the fact finding onappreciation of fact that there was enough material to withdraw the registration. Hence, we cannot interfere with the said fact finding. Noelement of law is involved in this appeal for decision of this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ Date: 30.07.2014ES ____________________________ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J