DIRECTOR OF INCOMETAX Vs. SARLA EDUCATION TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') arising out of the asst. yrs. 1982-83 to 1986-87 seeking a mandamus to the Tribunal for drawing up a statement of case and referring the following question of law (for all the five years of assessment) for the opinion of the higher Court :

(2.) THE Tribunal has (vide para 10 of its appellate order dt. 30th June, 1993) arrived at a finding of fact that assessee- trust was 'solely and wholly' involved in activities which fall under the head 'Education' and on that finding, the Tribunal has held that assessee-trust entitled to the benefit of s. 10(22) of the Act. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that all the documents brought on record and relevant for the purpose of recording the abovesaid finding were taken into consideration. The finding is purely one of facts.

(3.) WE are not impressed with the submission. It is true that the interpretation of document is a question of law but then the finding as recorded by the Tribunal is based on a total reading of the documents and we do not find the Tribunal having committed any error of any nature whatsoever while interpreting several clauses of the deed of trust and other documents showing the activities actually carried out by the trust during the assessment years in question. Secondly, the question as suggested by the Department does not lay any challenge to the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. The question as framed by the Department is itself founded on 'on the facts and in the circumstances of the case', meaning thereby that no challenge has been laid to the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. In Karnani Properties Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 547 (SC) : TC 54R.333, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held :