9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant as bogus donation. 3. The Ld. C1T(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the submissions made and evidence produced by the appellant with regard to the impugned disallowance. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not upholding the grounds of Appeal of the appellant about the wrong interpretation and application of the CBDT Notification No. F.No.203/31/2018-ITA(II) dated 28/02/2019 relating to withdrawal of approval u/s 35(1)(ii) of the I T Act, 1961 in the case of M/s Bioved Research Society, Allahabad and while interpreting and applying said CBDT circular in the case of appellant, the ld. DCIT also not fulfilling his duty of making proper enquires in the matter of appellant. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not upholding the grounds of Appeal of the appellant about the misinterpretation and ignoring the explanation to section 35(1) as inserted by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006 with retrospective effect from 01/04/2006. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not upholding the grounds of Appeal of the appellant about the wrong ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act. 4.2 The assessee during the reassessment proceedings submitted that at the time of making the donation, the impugned research society was duly approved under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act by the prescribed authority i.e. CBDT. Such approval cannot be withdrawn with retrospective by issuing notification. CBDT has been empowered under section 295(4) of the Act to make rules with retrospective effect which are not prejudicial to the assessee. But the power to make rules or power to issue notification are distinct. Therefore, cancellation of approval of impugned research society under section 35(1)(ii)of the Act by issuing notification is invalid and accordingly the believe formed by the AO was based on such invalid cancellation for escapement of income which is not sustainable. 4.3 The assessee further submitted that she given donation to an approved organization for the purpose of furtherance of research activity. Subsequently, the approval of such organization was cancelled on account of the involvement of such organization in the activity of accommodation entries cannot vitiate the genuine donation given by her. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the authorities. As such, no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee based on the cancellation of the registration certificate in a future date. 8. On the other hand, the learned DR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 9. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that this Tribunal involving identical facts and circumstances in the case of Inspiron Engineering Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT in ITA No.968/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under: "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 bene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d gone through the record carefully. The AO is harping upon an information supplied by the survey tern of Calcutta. He has not specifically recorded statement of representatives of the donee. He has not brought on record a specific evidence wherein donee has deposed that donations received from the assessee was paid back in cash after deducting commission. On the basis of a general information collected from the donee, the donation made by the assessee cannot be doubted. Neither representatives of the donee have been put to cross-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 genuinen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
