9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... karsh Sansthan, Indore ignoring the fact that the Mahila Utkarsh Sansthan, Indore had categorically denied receiving donation from the M/s Raj Enterprises vide letter dated 10.01.2013 and 04.02.2013 duly signed by the Chairperson Dr. Sonia Sharma during the assessment proceedings. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Thane has erred in accepting the sudden changed version of Dr. Sonia Sharma, Chairperson regarding receipt of donation from the assessee disregarding the specific denial of receipt of donation vide letter dated 10.01.2013 and 04.02.2013 wherein she has categorically stated that there is a bogus account being run in the name of president & treasurer of Mahila Utkarsh Sansthan, Indore by so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ila Utkarsh Sansthan (for short 'MUS') Indore and claimed deduction u/s 80G. The Assessing Officer (AO) called for copy of receipt of donation from the assessee. No reply was furnished by assessee. The AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of I.T. Act to the MUS. The MUS denied to have received any donation from assessee vide its reply dated 10.01.2013 and 04.02.2013. The was show caused as to why the claim of donation be not treated as non-genuine and added to the total income. Assessee submitted its reply dated 15.03.2013. The reply of assessee was not considered satisfactory and the AO rejected the claim of deduction u/s 35AC of the Act and added Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to the total income of assessee in the assessment order dated 18.03.2013. Aggrieved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther argued that the provisions of section 35AC lays down the condition that, if assessee incurred expenditure by way of payment to Institution approved for carrying out any eligible project or scheme and such payment is supported by a certificate under Form No. 58A, then their deduction is to be granted to the assessee. AR of assessee further argued that for valid deduction u/s 35AC, two conditions are required to be furnished , (i) the payment must be to an approved Institution (ii) such payment is certified by a certificate in Form No. 58A. The assessee complied both the conditions. AR of assessee further argued that initially when notice was issued to MUS, they filed reply dated 04.02.2013. The AO selected only one sentence of their r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nuine. Assessee submitted its reply and contended therein that assessee made payment to the Institution which are duly eligible and availed the certificate under Form No. 58A as per the provisions of Section 35AC(2)(a) of the Act. The information initially provided by MUS were subsequently corrected/ by Dr. Sonia Sharma by appearing personally before AO. The AO disallowed the claim of donation on two Grounds - (i) that MUS has no knowledge of donation till 15.02.2012 and the reply was filed by third party on 26.02.2013 is an afterthought and procured one, (ii) The Audit Report submitted by MUS on 26.02.2013 revealed that they have claimed loss for forgery to the tune of Rs. 8,63,26,000/-. It was urged before the CIT(A) that while considerin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
