TMI Blog1993 (6) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner?" Shortly stated, the facts are as under: The assessee paid a donation of Rs. 40,000 during the relevant period to the Society for Integral Development which was granted approval under section 35CCA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as per letter of approval dated December 17, 1982, for the period from December 13, 1982, to December 12, 1985. The assessment of the assessee for the year under consideration was completed under section 143(1) on June 26, 1987, on a total loss of Rs. 2,380 wherein the claim for deduction of Rs. 40,000 was allowed. The Commissioner of Income-tax subsequently found that the approval under section 35CCA to the Society for Integral Development which was accorded by the State Level. Committee was withdrawn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t affects adversely the assessee. He has also submitted that the Revenue must be held to be bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel inasmuch as upon the representation that the entire income donated to the approved institution is exempt from tax under section 35CCA, the assessee had in reliance paid such donation to the institution, and thus acted to its detriment. The Revenue cannot contend to the contrary. He has also submitted that the society cannot be penalised after the donation was paid to an approved institution. It is his contention that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 is wholly illegal inasmuch as the Income-tax Officer acted on the basis of approval subsisting on the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; (ii) not utilising money raised on donations for approved programmes of rural development ; and (iii) merely acting as an agency for supplying certificates under section 35CCA(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on commission and returning the balance to the alleged donors within a day or two of the clearing of cheques received as donation. The Committee, therefore, resolved on March 3, 1987, that the approval accorded to the Society for Integral Development, vide letter dated December 17, 1982, be withdrawn retrospectively from December 13, 1982. The assessment was made on June 26, 1987, after the approval had been withdrawn. It is surprising that the assessee having a net profit of Rs. 42,000 ventured to donate a sum of Rs. 40,000 to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... approval given under section 35CCA was withdrawn with retrospective effect from December 17, 1982, that is, from the date of approval on the date of making assessment, i.e., on June 27, 1987. Therefore, the Tribunal held that though the approval might have been withdrawn on March 3, 1987, with retrospective effect from December 17, 1982, the said order of withdrawal of approval was not within the knowledge of the Income-tax Officer on the date of making the assessment on June 27, 1987." In our view, the Tribunal has come to an erroneous finding ignoring the materials on record. On the date of assessment made under section 143(1) by accepting the return of the assessee, the approval had already been withdrawn. Whether or not on the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court has held that promissory estoppel applies to taxation. But this contention is of no assistance to the assessee since the Supreme Court in the said case has at the same breath sounded a note of caution that the said doctrine in public affairs cannot be applied heedless of the circumstances. Where the doctrine exposes the overriding public interest to a jeopardy, the doctrine has to yield. The doctrine in its application to taxation matters must be weighed against its impact on public interest. In this connection, the following observations of the Supreme Court are worth quoting : "The doctrine of promissory estoppel is a significant judicial contribution in that direction. But it is necessary to point out that since the doctr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no such provision in section 35CCA. We cannot read into the provision something which is not there. The Explanation below section 80G as referred to is in quintessential nature a substantive provision. But no such substantive right is conferred on a contributor to the society under section 35CCA. In the absence of such a protection carved out for the donor, it is not open to the assessee to plead for it. That would be grafting to the law a substantive provision. But the judiciary is content with only interpreting the provisions, not amputating or grafting any limb, more so when the effect would be substantive. The submissions of counsel for the assessee would have been persuasive if the case of the assessee on the face of it had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
