2020 (2) TMI 31 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of donation u/s 35(1)(ii) - HELD THAT -In the facts of the present case, the CIT(Appeals) has given the finding of the fact that the amount of donation was transferred to the Herbicure through Bank channel and there is no evidence that the same is returned back in cash. It is also found that the Herbicure Foundation has confirmed that the amount has been utilized for scientific research vide confirmation dated 29.09.2016. Accordingly, the onus placed upon the assessee was discharged. In view of the aforesaid findings of the fact given by both the authorities below, no interfere in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is required to be made. No substantial question of law arise from the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal fails and is hereby, dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of donation amounting to ?96,25,000 under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The primary issue was the disallowance of a donation of ?96,25,000 claimed under Section 35(1)(ii) for scientific research. The Assessing Officer disallowed the donation, alleging that the recipient foundation was involved in a bogus donation syndicate. However, the CIT (Appeals) overturned this decision, stating that the donation was transferred through the banking channel and utilized for scientific research, as confirmed by the foundation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals) decision, emphasizing that there was no disparity of facts compared to a similar case.

In the case of S.G. Vat Care Private Limited, a similar dispute over a donation to Herbicure Foundation was discussed. The Tribunal in that case allowed the appeal, highlighting that the Assessing Officer's conclusions lacked specific evidence and cross-examination of the foundation's representatives. The Tribunal emphasized that without concrete proof of the donation being returned in cash, the disallowance was unwarranted. The Tribunal in the present case echoed these findings, emphasizing the utilization of the donation for scientific research and the lack of evidence supporting the Revenue's disallowance.

The Senior Advocate for the Revenue argued that since no appeal was filed against the decision in the S.G. Vat Care Private Limited case, it was relevant to consider the Tribunal's findings in that matter. The Tribunal in the previous case had emphasized the absence of concrete evidence supporting the disallowance and the lack of cross-examination of the foundation's representatives. The Tribunal in the present case concurred with these observations, noting that the donation was transferred through legitimate channels and utilized for the intended purpose. Consequently, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the lower authorities' decisions and dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order.

In conclusion, the judgment revolved around the disallowance of a donation claimed under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The courts emphasized the importance of concrete evidence and proper verification before disallowing such deductions, especially in cases involving scientific research donations. The decision highlighted the significance of utilizing banking channels for transactions and ensuring the funds are utilized for the intended purpose, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.