Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2021 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1284 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Registration under Section 35(1)(ii) - Expenditure on scientific research - Sum paid to a research association which has as its object the undertaking of scientific research - substantial question of law or fact - as per revenue assessee had not filed the list of donors along with auditor’s report for Assessment Year 2007-08 and as such had failed to comply-with the precondition mentioned in Rule 5D(4) of the Income Tax Act - HELD THAT:- As original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act and there was no failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment - the statement of donations as received was very much available before the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment and consequently the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act after four years based on the ground that it was not filed along with the audit report is bad in law and has been assumed on technical ground not mandatory in nature. In the opinion of this Court, the stipulation under Rule 5D(4) of the Act that the statement of donations shall be filed along with audit report is not a mandatory condition and is considered to have been complied with the moment the details of donation were filed before the Assessing Officer prior to the completion of assessment. Keeping in view the concurrent findings of fact by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the said findings should not be lightly interfered with. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Aggarwal & Anr. vs. Thawar Das [1999 (8) TMI 1008 - SUPREME COURT] has reiterated that under Section 100 CPC the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the orders of the Courts below is confined to hearing on substantial question of law and interference with finding of the fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence - there is a difference between question of law and a “substantial question of law”. Consequently, this Court finds that there is no perversity in the findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
|