TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued, nor have they received any letter from the donors, who had sent their contribution towards the corpus. Even if the said statement is taken to be at its face value, the same is not sufficient to infer that the assessee has not maintained books of accounts in regular course. Given the fact that the respondent assessee is a separate assessee having a separate Permanent Account Number, the statement made with regard to Medical stores at the hospital are not relevant and the same cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of ascertaining the fact whether the books of accounts of the respondent – assessee have been maintained properly and in regular course. Similarly, the discrepancy arising from the statement of Dr. Rohilla Gorach; record of bio-attendance; and consequent difference in number of doctors actually worked and payments made as per the books, has been satisfactorily explained by the assessee. Similar has been the issue regarding document AS/4, which was found from Ms. Mayuri Jain, P.A. to Mr. Rahul Aggarwal, the Chairman of the respondent assessee. The Commissioner has wrongly rejected the request of opportunity of cross-examination of Ms. Mayuri Ja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the Pacific Medical University Act, 2014, the TBET has been given the status of sponsor / promoter of the respondent assessee. Both the Trust and respondent - University are separate assesses under the Act of 1961 and having separate Permanent Account Numbers. The respondent filed an application dated 7.7.2015 in the prescribed form, seeking approval of the Commissioner, Income Tax as required by Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act of 1961. On 07.12.2015, respondent University applied for registration under Section 12 AA of the Act of 1961 and was granted registration vide letter dated 5.6.2015. The respondent having a separate Permanent Account Number, claimed that it is a separate and independent entity than TBET, its sponsor Trust. Facts relating to application under Section 80G(vi): The respondent s application seeking approval under Section 80-G of the Act of 1961 came to be rejected by the Commissioner vide his order dated 28.1.2016. While rejecting the application, the learned Commissioner recorded a finding that there was a discrepancy in the number of Doctors on roll. Such finding was recorded as salary payment vis a vis their attendance shown in the data re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pressed while passing the order dated 27.1.2016 in relation to assessee s application under Section 80G(5) of the Act of 1961. The Commissioner passed an order dated 28.07.2016, on the basis of inconsistencies and discrepancies seen in the books of accounts stated by Mr. D.K. Gupta and Dr. Rohilla Gorach and held that the assessee has not maintained accounts in regular course of activities. The assessee preferred a separate appeal before the Tribunal against the aforesaid order dated 28.07.2016, which was registered as appeal No.277/JODH/2016. Findings of the Tribunal :- The learned Tribunal considered the facts of the case along with the material available on record and held that the order of the Commissioner(Exemption) is non-speaking and unreasoned. The Tribunal was of the view that the Commissioner(Exemption) has erred in placing heavy reliance upon the solitary statement of Dr. Rohilla Gorach and Mr. D.K. Gupta, while side-tracking and ignoring the explanation furnished by the assessee during the course of the proceedings. Learned Members of the Tribunal held that Mr. D.K. Gupta was not even an Accountant of the assessee and he was Accountant of the Trust, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not depict true and correct picture, for which the Commissioner(Exemption) was justified in rejecting its application under Section 80G5(vi) as well as the application filed under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act of 1961. Mr. Vikas Balia, appearing for the respondent assessee supported the order under challenge passed by the Tribunal by submitting that the Tribunal has recorded a clear and categorical finding in favour of the assessee that there is no discrepancy in maintaining the books of accounts. He argued that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and such a detailed and reasoned order passed by the Tribunal, after taking into consideration all the ocular and oral evidence as well as the arguments of both the sides, do not call for any interference. He contended that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are findings of fact, which have not even been alleged to be perverse, much less being proved to be perverse. He added that until and unless such findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal are shown to be perverse, this Court would not reappreciate the evidence to unsettle these findings. Learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orth by the assessee prima-facie appears to be plausible; and even if, the same is treated to be doubtful, then also, such discrepancy is not fatal to grant the requisite approval to an assessee. Such discrepancies can be duly examined and brought to book, while framing regular assessment of the assessee for the relevant period. Similar has been the issue regarding document AS/4, which was found from Ms. Mayuri Jain, P.A. to Mr. Rahul Aggarwal, the Chairman of the respondent assessee. The Commissioner has wrongly rejected the request of opportunity of cross-examination of Ms. Mayuri Jain on the ground that such request of crossexamination of witness was not made before the Dy. Director of Income Tax. In our opinion, the Commissioner has erred in not allowing the assessee, an opportunity of cross-examination. In absence of the requisite cross-examination, her statement cannot form a basis of arriving at a conclusion against the respondent. Upon overall appraisal of the facts and the material available on record, we are of the view that the findings recorded and conclusions drawn by the Tribunal are correct and there is no perversity. No substantial question of law, requirin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
