TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1048X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, we find that the provisions of section 35(1)(ii) of the Act vide its Explanation reproduced hereinabove clearly proves that the donor (i.e assessee herein) cannot be affected due to subsequent withdrawal of recognition with retrospective effect. We direct the ld AO to grant deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2224/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 11-6-2019 - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member And Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate) For the Respondent : Shri Satish Rajore (Sr. DR) ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 7. Any other ground that may be raised at the time of hearing. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of agrochemicals and intermediates job work supplying to pesticides and insecticide industries Globally. The assessee filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14 on 27.11.2014. The return of income was selected for scrutiny. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 16.12.2016. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made and addition of ₹ 2,62,50,000/- on account of disallowance under section 35(1)(ii) ( being 175% of ₹ 1,50,00,000/-). The Assessing Officer while making the disallowance noted that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d weighted deduction holding that the CBDT has withdrawn the notification dated 4/2010 dated 28.01.2010. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that assessee has no reason to doubt the veracity of Institution especially when the same had been approved by CBDT. The assessee has contributed/donated during the validity of approval by CBDT. There is no fault on the part of the assessee. The assessee should not be suffered due to withdrawal of approval by retrospective date. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in M/s Motilal Dahyabhai Jhaveri Sons vs. ACIT in ITA No. 3453/Mum/2018 dated 24.04.2019. 5. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be utilized for scientific research. The assessee also contended that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of agrochemicals and is concerned about the effect on human health and is interested in supporting research in this field. The assessee also stated that from the tax perspective and fulfilling its social responsibility in the field of human health, the contribution was made. The assessee has no reason to doubt the veracity of Institution or its genuineness. The assessee has no knowledge about the alleged wrongful activities or legal activities of the assessee. The reply of assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer concluded that the approval of the Institution has been withdrawn by C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act due to subsequent withdrawal of recognition by CBDT with retrospective effect. We find that the issue under dispute is already addressed by the co-ordinate bench of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs M/s Maco Corporation (India) Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 16/Kol/2017 dated 14.3.2018 for Asst Year 2013-14 wherein it was held as under:- 8.1. The brief fact pertaining to SGHPH are as under:- a) SGHPH was recognized vide Gazette Notification dated 28.1.2009 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT in short), Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Government of India, u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act. b) SGHPH was also recognized as a scientific industrial researc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this tribunal in exactly similar facts had decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the following cases:- a) Rajda Polymers vs DCIT in ITA No. 333/Kol/2017 for Asst Year 2013- 14 dated 8.11.2017. b) Saimed Innovation vs ITO in ITA No. 2231/Kol/2016 for Asst Year 2013-14 dated 13.9.2017. The findings of those decisions are not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. 8.5. In view of the aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the ld CITA had rightly deleted the disallowance u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act in the sum of ₹ 3,06,25,000/- made by the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
