NASIM SIKANDAR, J. The Lahore Bench of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for our opinion and answer:- "Whether on the facts and in the Circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified to uphold the exemption to the assessee under clauses 86 and 94 of the second schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979."
2. The respondent as assessee registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is engaged in running a School. For the three years involved viz 1975-76, 1976-77, & 1977-78, the claimed exemption under clauses 86 and 103 of Second Schedule of the ordinance, 1979 was refused by the Assessing Officer, He had two reasons to assign. Firstly that the institution was running in profit and had been declaring loss/income earned from that institution. Secondly some of the staff member were foreigners who were being paid big salaries.
3. Learned first appellant authority however, directed acceptance of claim for exemption with reference to clauses (86) and (94) of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.
Learned Tribunal maintained the order of the first appellate authority.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the revenue, we are of the view that the issue involved does not raise a legal controversy. The Assessing officer found that in terms of clause 86 the school being run by the assessee was not solely established for educational purposes and that the assessee was declaring income/profit from the institution. Both the learned first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal were of the view that there was no question of declaring any income inasmuch pas the school run by the assessee was receiving grants from various local and foreigner agencies and that if these grants had not been received, the school run by the assessee could not have functioned. The findings of fact do not appear to have been controverted in any manner. Therefore, the only issue in such situation would have been if the Tribunal had sufficient material available before it to reach the conclusions drawn by it. Since the material on the basis of which the learned first appellate Authority found for the assessee and for similar reasons the learned Tribunal maintained these facts, no legal controversy can be said to have arisen of of the order of the Tribunal.
The question as framed, as observed before, does not give rise to a legal controversy.
Accordingly we will refuse to answer the question.