9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) was wrong and unjustified in confirming the disallowance of deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of Rs. 3,50,000/- on the donation of Rs. 2,00,000/- made to School of Human Genetics & Pollution Health without properly appreciating the submission of the appellant. The court decisions cited by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) are not applicable in the facts of the appellant's case. 2. For that the appellant craves leave to alter, amend, modify any of the grounds and/or take additional ground before or at the time of hearing of this appeal." 2. Heard both the parties. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that from the statement recorded and relied upon by the Assessing Officer of Shri Avijit Sinha Roy, it is clear that he stated that after February, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Corporation was a bogus transaction. In his rejoinder, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, when Shri Avijit Sinha Roy has in his sworn statement stated that he has left his work of providing bogus donations far back in the year 2011 and hence, the question of his arranging these donations in the year 2014, does not arise. He further pointed out from the statement at page 11 of the assessment order, it is clear that the list was prepared by the revenue authorities and that Shri Avijit SInha Roy has simply signed the list by noting that he has seen the list. He submitted that the list cannot be taken as evidence. He submitted that opportunity of crossexamination has not been provided in this case and hence no reliance can be pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch less in the area of research thereon and accordingly there was no need for the assessee to give donation of Rs. 14,00,000/- to HHBRF . We find that this aspect has been duly addressed by the assessee by stating that one Cardiologist Doctor had introduced the assessee to HHBRF and donations were given after due satisfaction of the assessee based on personal visits to the two research centres of HHBRF and activities carried on by them. Moreover, it is well settled that it is always the prerogative of the assessee to give or not to give any donation to a particular institution, which wisdom cannot be questioned by the revenue. The question of business expediency of an expenditure had to be viewed from the point of view of the businessman a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to light that the assessee herein had indeed received back the cash in lieu of cheque donations given to HHBRF. This serves as a clinching missing evidence in the entire gamut of this case. 7. Respectfully applying the proposition of law laid down in this case law to the facts of case on hand and as the donation to " School of Human Genetics and Population Health" was made while it was holding the approval in question, we direct the AO to grant the said deduction as claimed. In the result this issue is decided in favour of the assessee." 4. Consistent with the view taken by the Jurisdictional Tribunal in the above cited orders, we delete this addition and allow this appeal of the assessee. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
