9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RI M. BALAGANESH, AM For The Assessee : Shri D.V. Lakhani And Shri Dipesh Ruparelia For The Revenue : Shri Ashutosh Ranjhan ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): These appeals in ITA Nos.3453/Mum/2018 1584/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2013-14 2014-15 arise out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-59, Mumbai in appeal Nos.CIT(A)-59/IT-04(IT- 831/CIT(A)-30)/2017-18 dated 28/03/2018 CIT(A)-59/IT-04(IT- 10857/CIT(A)-30)/2017-18 dated 28/02/2019 respectively (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 22/03/2016 15/12/2016 respectively by the ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 19(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. The first effective common issue to be decided in these appeals is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in upholding the disallowance made u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act in the sum of ₹ 26,25,000/- and ₹ 21,00,000/- for the Asst Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively in the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts of Asst Year 2013-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod to prove that the assessee had sufficient funds in his bank account to give donation to SHGPH and that the said payment were made by account payee cheque and duly debited in the bank statement of the assessee. d) Notification issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT in short) dated January 2009 approving SHGPH u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act together with the terms and conditions for recognition of Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (SIROs). e) Appeal letter from SHGPH explaining their registration and approvals credentials and seeking donations from various organizations and persons. f) Copy of renewal of recognition of SHGPH as a Scientific Research Organistation (SIRO) by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research under the Scheme on Recognition of Scientific and Industrial Research Organisations (SIROs)-1988 dated 17.6.2010 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Science and Technology, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Technology Bhavan, New Delhi. g) Certificate of recognition issued by Government of West Bengal, Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Agarwal for concluding that the assessee is not eligible for weighted deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act and accordingly disallowed a sum of ₹ 26,25,000/- in the assessment. The action of the ld AO was upheld by the ld CITA. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeals before us for both the years. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we find that the ld AR placed on record the copy of the Notification No. 4/2010 (F.No. 203/64/2009/ITA-II) dated 28.1.2010 issued by CBDT to SHGPH recognizing them u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act from Asst Year 2008-09 onwards. The ld AR also placed on record a copy of the Notification issued by CBDT dated 15.9.2016 withdrawing the recognition of approval granted u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act to SHGPH with retrospective effect from 1.4.2007. Admittedly, the assessee had given donation to SHGPH on 6.3.2013 for ₹ 15,00,000/- ( 175% of 15 lacs is ₹ 26,25,000) and on 22.1.2014 for ₹ 12,00,000/- (175% of 12 lacs is ₹ 21,00,000/-), which are after the date of recognition of SHGPH u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act but before the date of withdrawal of the said approval by CBDT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nate bench of this tribunal in exactly similar facts had decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the following cases:- a) Rajda Polymers vs DCIT in ITA No. 333/Kol/2017 for Asst Year 2013-14 dated 8.11.2017. b) Saimed Innovation vs ITO in ITA No. 2231/Kol/2016 for Asst Year 2013-14 dated 13.9.2017. 3 The findings of those decisions are not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. 8.5. In view of the aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the ld CITA had rightly deleted the disallowance u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act in the sum of ₹ 3,06,25,000/- made by the ld AO. Accordingly, the Grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. 6.1. We find that the reliance placed by the ld AR on the decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Chotatingrai Tea reported in (2003) 126 Taxman 399 (SC) dated 29.10.2002 and State of Maharashtra vs Suresh Trading Company reported in (1998) 1998 taxmann.com 1747 (SC) dated 7.2.1996 are very well founded and are squarely applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
