9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive though reproduced in the appellate order and also failed to address various factual and legal contentions raised by the appellant. The appellate order is therefore perverse and may please be cancelled. 2. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO in making addition/disallowance for a sum of Rs. 1,12,50,000/- in respect of the donation of Rs. 50,00,000/- given to School of Human Genetic & Population Health (which is eligible for deduction @ 175% u/s 35(1 )(ii)) and donation of Rs. 25,00,000/- given to Navjivan CharitableTrust, Mumbai which had been accorded approval by the government u/s. 35AC of the IT. Act eligible for deduction 100%. It is prayed that the impugned additions may please be deleted being contrary to law and facts of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO in making the addition/disallowance by making use of the evidence collected behind the back of the assessee and without providing copies of statements of various persons in spite of the specific requests made by the appellant. The AO has passed the impugned order in violation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company and engaged in the business of manufacturing & sale of Light of Aluminum Flayer, Pressure Die Cast Components, Precision Engineering Soutions & Spares. The assessee in the year under consideration has claimed the deduction with respect to the donation made to the charitable institution and trust as detailed under: 1. School of Human Genetics and Population Health 50,00,000/- 175% 87,50,000/- 35(1)(ii) 2. Navjivan Charitable Trust 25,00,000/- 100% 25,00,000/- 35AC 3.1 The assessee in support of its claim submitted that the donations were made through account payee cheques/RTGS to the above said parties and the same were credited in their account. The assessee further submitted that the trust/institution has been notified under section 35AC/35(1)(ii) by issuing notification in the official gazette of the Central Government which can be verified from the receipts issued by the trust/institution against the donations received. The assessee also furnished the certificate of expenditure in form 58A read with rule 11 of Income Tax Rules. Thus it claimed that it has duly complied the provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CIT-A. 4. The assessee before the Ld. CIT-A reiterated the submission as made before the AO and further contended that the AO without conducting any independent inquiry with respect to the donation made to "SHG & PH" concluded that such institution has been indulged in the activity of funds rotation by providing bogus entries. The AO solely on the basis of information received from the Directorate of Kolkata has made the addition. 4.1 The assessee further submits that the statement recorded under section 133A of the Act during the survey at "NCT" has no evidentiary value except the fact that such statement may help in conducting the enquiries in the proceedings. Besides the statement recorded by the department was not provided for cross examination. 4.2 The assessee also submits that the AO refuses to allow the deduction for the donation made to "SHG & PH" on the ground that Government has withdrawn the approval granted under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. However, the undisputed fact is that at the time of donation, the entity was eligible to accept the donation under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act and the Government has withdrawn the approval granted after two and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecorded cannot be ignored during the assessment proceedings. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The issue before us arises with respect to the donations made to the institution "SGH & PH" and "NCT". Regarding the donations made to "SGH & PH" it is the undisputed facts that at the relevant time of donation to "SHG & PH", the institution was approved under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act though such approval has been withdrawn on a later date by the Government by issuing notification. Thus, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of deduction provided under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act merely on the ground that the approval was withdrawn by the Government on a later date. In this regard we place our reliance on the order of this tribunal involving identical issue which has been decided in favour of the assessee in the case of ACIT v/s M/s Thakkar Govindbhai Ganpatlal HUF in ITA No. 2318/AHD/2017 wherein it was held as under: 5. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. In the case of S.G. Vat care P. Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ross-examination, nor any specific reply deposing that such donation was not received, or if received the same was repaid in cash, has been brought on record. In the absence of such circumstances, donation given by the assessee to the donee, on which the assessee no mechanism to check the veracity, can be doubted, more particularly, when certificate to obtain donation has been cancelled after two years of the payment of donation. It is fact which has been unearthed subsequent to the donations. Therefore, there cannot be any disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground. " 6. There is no disparity on the facts. On the basis same survey report, the genuineness of the donation has been doubted in the case of the assessee also. Therefore, the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the order of the ITAT in the case of S.G.Vat care P.Ltd., we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue. It is dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 7.1 As the issue decided by this tribunal in the case above, is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case, therefore we disagree with the finding of the authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
