9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1685 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 35(1)(ii) - expenditure incurred towards donation - assessee is the beneficiary of such bogus donation - rejection of claim of benefit of donation was made on the ground that by and under a notification being No. 79/2016 dated 06.09.2016 issued by CBDT the approval granted to such foundation has been withdrawn - HELD THAT - The issue is squarely covered by and under several judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Bench including one of Thakkar Govindbhai Ganpatlal (HUF). 2019 (7) TMI 1559 - ITAT AHMEDABAD The said appeal preferred by the Revenue was rejected on the basis of the judgment passed in the matter of S. G. Vat Care Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (1) TMI 1694 - ITAT AHMEDABAD passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the identical issue. Since the donation has not been doubted by the Revenue in the case of the assessee, in the absence of any changed circumstances, respectfully relying upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench we allow the appeal preferred by the assessee. Consequentially, the addition made by the authorities below is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Appeal against rejection of donation benefit under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to withdrawal of approval by CBDT. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of the benefit of a donation of Rs. 10 lakh given by the assessee to a Kolkata-based company, Herbicure Healthcare Bio Herbal Research Foundation (HHBRF), as the approval granted to the foundation was withdrawn by a CBDT notification. 2. The assessee contended that the donation was made before the cancellation of approval by CBDT and cited precedents to support their case, including a judgment in a similar matter (ITA 2318/Ahd/2017 for AY 2014-15) where the appeal by the Revenue was rejected based on a Co-ordinate Bench judgment in the matter of S.G. Vat Care Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO. 3. The Co-ordinate Bench judgment mentioned the case of S.G. Vat Care P.Ltd., where a similar donation was disallowed by the AO but later deleted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the AO did not have specific evidence to doubt the donation and allowed the appeal, stating that in the absence of concrete evidence, the donation cannot be considered bogus. 4. The Tribunal noted that the facts in the present case were similar to the S.G. Vat Care P.Ltd. case, where the genuineness of the donation was doubted based on a survey report. As the Revenue did not doubt the donation in the present case and there were no changed circumstances, the appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the addition made by the authorities below was deleted. 5. The Tribunal, relying on the Co-ordinate Bench's judgment, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, emphasizing that since the Revenue did not doubt the donation and there were no new circumstances, the rejection of the donation benefit was not justified. 6. In conclusion, the assessee's appeal against the rejection of the donation benefit was allowed based on the lack of concrete evidence to doubt the genuineness of the donation, as established by the Co-ordinate Bench's precedent in a similar case.
|
