TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring to such evidence including statement while disallowing the claim of assessee in the assessment order. The CIT (A) concluded that the assessee satisfied both the condition enumerated u/s 35AC. The Ld. CIT(A) also considered the fact that even if any discrepancy or forgery has been occurred in case of Donee i.e. MUS, the AO cannot denied the claim of deduction and allowed the appeal of assessee. - Decided against revenue - ITA No.6379/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2016 - SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Revenue : Shri Nitin Waghmode (DR) For The Assessee : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi (AR) ORDER PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. The present appeal filed by the Revenue against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statements of Dr. Sonia Sharma wherein she has denied the receipts of donations vide letter dated 10.01.2013 and 04.01.2013 and disregarding the fact of filling writ petition No. 8690/2010 in the Hon'ble HC of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in which she has alleged that a fraud has been committed by some persons from the said bank account with Kotak Mahindra Bank and a complaint letter dated 19.05.2010 was also filed with the bank in this regard. 4. The appellant prays the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Thane, may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any ground/grounds, which may be necessary. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, who is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... available on record. Ld. DR for Revenue argued that the assessee made a bogus claim of donation. The AO when issued notice to the MUF u/s 133(6) about the genuineness of donation. The MUS vide their reply dated 10.01.2013 and 04.02.2013 denied about the receipt of such donation. DR for Revenue further argued that from the contents of reply of MUS, it was clear that the MUS have no knowledge of donation to them by the assessee. The reply filed by Dr. Sonia Sharma on 26.02.2013 was nothing to but an afterthought and procured story of the assessee in order to claim donation as genuine and strongly supported the order of AO. Ld. AR for assessee argued that assessee made the payment of donation through pay orders. The pay order No. 781890 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MUS during assessment proceedings . Ld. AR further argued that the CIT(A) correctly appreciated the fact of the present case and deleted the addition. Ld. AR of assessee has further drawn our attention to Notification No. SO 121(E) dated 12.01.2009 isued by the Central Government on the recommendation of National Committee for Promotion of Social and Economic Welfare, notifying the Institution approved by the National Committee, wherein the name of MUS is mentioned as Sl. No. 16, the receipt of donations along with copy of Form No. 58A, Resolution of MUS for accepting donation and the letter/confirmation of MUS dated 26.02.2013 ( available at page No. 8 to 22 of PB). 4. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition. Ld. CIT(A) considered the contention of the assessee and the notification No. SO121(E) dated 12.01.2009 notifying the Institution as eligible Institution for health and protection activities for elderly persons for three Financial Year i.e. 2008-09, 2009-10 2011-12. The CIT(A) concluded that AO has recorded the statement of Dr. Sonia Sharma (Chairperson of MUS) which clearly established the fact that assessee has actually made the payment of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- to the MUS. The AO despite recording the statement confirmed the donation conveniently avoided referring to such evidence including statement while disallowing the claim of assessee in the assessment order. The CIT (A) concluded that the assessee satisfied both the conditi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
