TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be held to be bogus. Moreso, withdrawal of approval by the CBDT as was granted to the said HHBRF was only on 06.09.2016 i.e. much after the donation made by the assessee. Principally, even if subsequently for any reason if approval granted is withdrawn the deduction claimed cannot be denied. We, thus, are of the considered opinion that the disallowance made under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act is not sustainable in the eye of law and hence quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2284/Ahd/2018 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2021 - Waseem Ahmed, Member (A) And Madhumita Roy, Member (J) For the Appellant : Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. and P.B. Parmar, A.R. For the Respondents : L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R. ORDER Per Ms. Madhumita Roy, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been rejected by the authorities below. Hence, the instant appeal before us. 3. It is the case of the Revenue that the certificate for receiving donation of that institution was cancelled on 06.09.2016 and therefore, the assessee's claim is bogus. In response whereof the assessee submitted that the donation received from the assessee has been utilized for activities pertaining to scientific research. Furthermore, there is no evidentiary value on the statement made during the survey proceeding on the basis of which the addition has been made. In this aspect, the Ld. AR relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Khader Khan Son, reported in 25 taxmann.com 413 (SC). Apart from that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties, and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record including judgments as narrated by the Ld. AR. 6. The submission made by the Ld. AR has been duly considered by us. In fact, the case made out by the assessee has earlier been taken into consideration by the Co-ordinate Bench in identical issue in ITA No. 2318/Ahd/2017 in the matter of ACIT vs. M/s. Thakkar Govindbhai Ganpatlal - HUF. In that particular judgment the judicial pronouncement in the matter of S.G. Vat Care Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 1943/Ahd/2017 has been taken into consideration where the fact was identical in nature. The relevant portion of the said is as follows:- 5. We have duly conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... criterion. Certificate for receiving donation was cancelled on 5.9.2016. There is no mechanism with the assessee to verify whether such donee was a genuine institute or not, which can avail donation from the society. 5. The ld. DR, on the other hand, contended that in the investigation it came to know about bogus affairs conducted by the donee. Hence, these donations are rightly been treated as bogus, and addition is rightly made. 6. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The AO is harping upon an information supplied by the survey team of Calcutta. He has not specifically recorded statement of representatives of the donee. He has not brought on record a specific evidence wherein donee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly relying upon the same we find that the addition made merely on the basis of the statement made during the survey proceeding and in the absence of any evidence showing the donation received by HHBRF returned back in cash to the assessee after taking commission the said transaction cannot be held to be bogus. Moreso, withdrawal of approval by the CBDT as was granted to the said HHBRF was only on 06.09.2016 i.e. much after the donation made by the assessee. Principally, even if subsequently for any reason if approval granted is withdrawn the deduction claimed cannot be denied. We, thus, are of the considered opinion that the disallowance made under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act is not sustainable in the eye of law and hence quashed. In the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
