TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rma, AM Shri Vijay Pal Rao, JM Assessee by: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) Revenue by : Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl.CIT) ORDER R.C. Sharma, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A)-I, Jaipur dated 20/06/2018 for the A.Y. 2014-15 in the matter of order passed U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). Following grounds have been taken by the assessee. 1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of ₹ 14.00 lacs by holding that donation made to School of Human Genetics Research health, Kolkata as bogus. 1.1 The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming an addition of ₹ 1,12,000/- on account of alleged commission paid for acquiring the accommodation entries for alleged bogus donation. 2. The assessee craves to amend, alter and modify any of the grounds of appeal. 3. The appropriate cost be awarded to the assessee. 2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company was engaged in the wholesale business of pharmaceuticals. It filed its return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l on record which shows that assessee has paid such commission. In any case, the donation made by the assessee is genuine as explained above and therefore, the addition so made on surmises and conjectures is not warranted. 5. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders passed by the lower authorities and contended that the A.O. has correctly disallowed donation claimed U/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act since the registration of M/s SHG PH was withdrawn. 6. We have considered the rival contention and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and find from the record that during the year under consideration the assessee had claimed deduction for the donation given to School of Human Genetics and Population Health which was declined by the A.O.. The issue of allowability of deduction in respect of donation to School of Human Genetics and Population Health is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s P.R. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 529/JP/2018 order dated 05/07/2018 and also the decision of the Coordinate bench of Kolkata in the case of DCIT Vs Maco Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 16/Kol/2017 order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of transactions already accomplished. Further, a statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates new rights and liabilities shall be continued to be prospection in operation, unless otherwise provided, either expressly or by necessary implications. Similarly in the case of CIT(Central-1), Delhi Vs Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the beneficial amendment which effects the public generally and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislators object, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given retrospective effect. Thus the retrospective effect can be given only for the beneficial amendments but not to put the additional burden that too on third party. Further the explanation to Section 35(1) of the Act also provides that deduction to association), university, college or other institution to which clause (ii) or clause (iii) applies, shall not be denied merely on the ground that, subsequent to the payment of such sum by the assessee, the approval granted to the association, university, college or other association, university, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition as SIRO by the Department of Scientific and industrial Research under the Scheme on Recognition of Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, 1988 was made for the period from 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2013 vide communication in F.No. 14/473/2007-TU-V dated 17.6.2010. 8.2. At the outset, we find that the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2006 had introduced an Explanation in Section 35 of the Act which reads as under:- Section 35(1)(ii) Explanation The deduction, to which the assessee is entitled in respect of any sum paid to a research association, university, college or other institution to which clause (ii) or clause (iii) applies, shall not be denied merely on the ground that, subsequent to the payment of such sum by the assessee, the approval granted to the association, university, college or other institution referred to in clause (ii) or clause (iii) has been withdrawn. Hence the aforesaid provisions of the Act are very clear that the payer (the assessee herein) would not get affected if the recognition granted to the payee had been withdrawn subsequent to the date of contribution by the assessee. Hence no disallowance u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant provisions of the statute under which the notification or order is issued and the power is not available after an enforceable right has accrued under the notification or order. Moreover, Section 21 has no application to vary or amend or review a quasi-judicial order. A quasi-judicial order can be generally varied or reviewed when obtained by fraud or when such power is conferred by the Act or Rules under which it is made. (See Interpretation of Statutes, Ninth Edition by G.P. Singh page 893). 26.************************* 27. It is not in dispute that an express power was conferred on the CIT to cancel the registration for the first time by enacting sub-Section (3) in Section 12AA only with effect from 01.10.2004 by the Finance (No.2) Act 2004 (23 of 2004) and hence such power could be exercised by the CIT only on and after 01.10.2004. i.e. (assessment year 2004-2005) because the amendment in question was not retrospective but was prospective in nature. 28. The issue involved in this appeal had also come up for consideration before three High Courts, namely, Delhi High Court in the case of DIT (Exemptions) v. Mool Chand Khairati Ram Trust [2011] 11 taxmann.com 42/199 Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
