9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent cited by the parties as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. We find that the identical ground has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA No.3453/Mum/18 & 1584/Mum/2019 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 in the case of M/s Motilal Dahyabhai Jhaveri Vrs. ACIT. The operative portion of the order of ITAT passed in ITA No.3453/Mum/18 & 1584/Mum/2019 is contained in para no. 6.1, which are reproduced below:- 6.1. We find that the reliance placed by the ld AR on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Chotatingrai Tea reported in (2003) 126 Taxman 399 (SC) dated 29.10.2002 and State of Maharashtra vs Suresh Trading Company reported in (1998) 1998 taxmann.com 1747 (SC) dated 7.2.1996 are very well founded and are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case before us. The ratio decidendi of the said judgements are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. We also find that the ld AR had rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of National Leather Cloth Manufacturing Co. vs Indian Council of Agricultural Research reported in (2000) 110 Taxman 511 (Bom) dated 7.10.1999 in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he office bearers of the body/trust, the assessee cannot be penalized and the amount of donations claimed by the assessee on account of payment to the said school cannot be denied. In the case of Narbheram Vishram Gua, ITA No.42&43/Kol/2018, order dated 27.07.2018, the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal under similar circumstances and facts has held as under :- "13 we have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, we note that the assessee has challenged disallowance of weighted deduction of Rs. 4,81,25,000/- for A. Y. 2013-14 and disallowance of weighted deduction of Rs. 10,50,00,000/-, for A. Y. 2014-15, claimed by him under section 35(0(ii) of the Act in respect of the amounts of donations made to two Institutions viz. 'Matrivani Institute Experimental Research & Education' (hereinafter referred to as 'Matrivani) and 'The School of Human Genetics and Population Health' (hereinafter referred to as 'SHG). The Assessee Firm in A. Y. 2014-15, made donation of Rs,2,00,00,000/ to Matrivani and Rs,4,00,00,000/ to SHG and claimed weighted deduction of Rs. 10,50,00,000 under section 35(I)(ii) of the Income T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs recorded by the Investigation Wing in course of survey proceedings, in their cases and the extracts of which was provided to the assessee in the show cause notice, the name of the assessee firm does not appear anywhere. It is to be noted that none of those persons implicate the assessee to have made bogus donations and that cash was paid to the donors assessee in lieu of the alleged bogus donation after deducting their commission. We note that the statements of the various parties and persons were recorded behind the back of the assessee and the Assessing Officer did not allow opportunity of cross examination. We note that in absence of opportunity of crossexamination no reliance could be made on such statements to draw any adverse inference against the assessee firm. The assessee firm denied its knowledge of the statements made by these institutes which were relied on by the Investigation Wing and the Assessing Officer. We note that not providing the opportunity of crossexamination is against the principle of natural justice and for that we rely of-the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prern Chand Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 105, 108 (del). We not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cs and Population Health, therefore these institutions are not entitled to claim benefit under section 35(1) (ii) of the Act. We note that the withdrawal of recognition u/s 35(l) (ii) of the Act in the hands of the payee organizations would not affect the rights and interests of the assessee herein for claim of weighted deduction u/s 35(1 )(ii) of the Act, for that we rely on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench, Kolkata, in the case of M/s Maco Corporation India (P) Ltd, ITA No.16/KoI/2017, for Assessment Year 2013-14, wherein it was held as follows: '29. All the three High Courts after examining the issue, in the light of the object of Section 12A of the Act and Section 21 of the General Clauses Act held that the order of the CIT passed under Section 12A is quasi judicial in nature. Second, there was no express provision in the Act vesting the CIT with power of cancellation of registration fill 01.10.2004; and lastly. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act has no application to the order passed by the CIT under Section 12A because the order is quasi judicial in nature and it is for all these reasons the CIT had no jurisdiction to cancel the registration certificate once gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act cannot be denied to the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the AO to grant deduction u/s.35(1 )(ii) of the Act. Appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-2014 (ITA No.6672/Mum/2017) is hereby allowed. 6. After having gone through the facts of the present case as well as considering the orders passed by revenue authorities and orders of the Coordinate Benches of ITAT as mentioned above, we find that as per the facts of the present case, admittedly, the assessee had given donation to SHGPH, which was after the date of recognition of SHGPH u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act, but before the date of withdrawal of said approval by CBDT in the case of SHGPH. Now, the short point for consideration before us is as to whether the assessee /donar could be denied weighted deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act due to the subsequent withdrawal of recognition by CBDT with retrospective effect. We find that the issue under consideration has already been addressed /considered by the Coordinate Bench of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of DCIT vrs. Maco Corporation (I) Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 16/Kol/2017 dated 14.03.18 for AY 2013-14. 7. Apart from this, Ld. AR had also placed on the decisions of Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
