9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Revenue : Shri Karni Dan Singh (JCIT) ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A)-3, Jaipur dated 11/09/2018 for the A.Y. 2013-14 in the matter of denial of claim of deduction U/s 35(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) on account of donation to School of Human Genetics and Population Health. 2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. In this case, the assessee has claimed deduction U/s 35(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of donation given to School of Human Genetics and Population Health. The A.O. declined the claim of deduction on the plea that the institution is not genuine. By the impugned order, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance and the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. It was argued by the ld AR of the assessee Shri M.L. Borad that during the year under consideration, the assessee had made a donation to School of Human Genetics & Population Health, an institute which is engaged in scientific research and duly notified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in terms of Section 35(1)(iii) of the Act vide notification No.4/2010 dated 28/01/2010. He further contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Population Health which was declined by the A.O.. The issue of allowability of deduction in respect of donation to School of Human Genetics and Population Health is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s P.R. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 529/JP/2018 order dated 05/07/2018 and also the decision of the Coordinate bench of Kolkata in the case of DCIT Vs Maco Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 16/Kol/2017 order dated 14/3/2018. The precise observation of the Tribunal in the case of M/s P.R. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (supra) was as under: "7. The Bench have heard both the sides on the issues raised in appeal, perused the material available on the record and also considered the case laws relied upon. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in manufacturing of rolled steel products. Return of income was filed electronically on 26/09/2014. The assessee has claimed weighted deduction U/s 35(1) (ii) of the Act. The assessee had made donation to an institute engaged in Scientific Research. The authorities below has not allowed the deduction. The assessee had made donation of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- to School of Human ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the beneficial amendments but not to put the additional burden that too on third party. Further the explanation to Section 35(1) of the Act also provides that deduction to association), university, college or other institution to which clause (ii) or clause (iii) applies, shall not be denied merely on the ground that, subsequent to the payment of such sum by the assessee, the approval granted to the association, university, college or other association, university, college or other institution, referred to in clause (ii) or clause(iii) has been withdrawn. The assessee has made donation i.e. on 13/01/2014, the institute was having a valid approval from the appropriate authorities and the assessee's claim cannot be denied. The Coordinate Bench of Kolkata ITAT in the case of M/s Maco Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 16/Kol/2017, copy of which has been placed at page Nos. 82 to 91 of the paper book, wherein the donation was made to the same institute i.e. school of Human Genetics and Population Health, was held that in view of explanation to Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act, would not be withdrawn subsequently when recognition has been rescinded. Similarly the Coordinate B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at, subsequent to the payment of such sum by the assessee, the approval granted to the association, university, college or other institution referred to in clause (ii) or clause (iii) has been withdrawn. Hence the aforesaid provisions of the Act are very clear that the payer (the assessee herein) would not get affected if the recognition granted to the payee had been withdrawn subsequent to the date of contribution by the assessee. Hence no disallowance u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act could be made in the instant case. 8.3. We find that there is no provision in section 35(1)(ii) of the Act to withdraw the recognition granted to the assessee therein. When there is no provision for withdrawal of recognition in the Act, the action of the revenue in withdrawing the recognition with retrospective effect from 1.4.2007 is unwarranted. In this regard, the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (Gwalior) M.P. Ltd vs. CIT Gwalior reported in (2018) 90 taxmann.com 281 (SC) wherein it was held that :- 21. In our considered opinion. the CIT had no express power of cancellation of the registration certificate once granted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on (3) in Section 12AA only with effect from 01.10.2004 by the Finance (No.2) Act 2004 (23 of 2004) and hence such power could be exercised by the CIT only on and after 01.10.2004. i.e. (assessment year 2004-2005) because the amendment in question was not retrospective but was prospective in nature. 28. The issue involved in this appeal had also come up for consideration before three High Courts, namely, Delhi High Court in the case of DIT (Exemptions) v. Mool Chand Khairati Ram Trust [2011] 11 taxmann.com 42/199 Taxman 1/339 ITR 622. Uttaranchal High Court in the case of Welham Boys' School Society v. CBDT 12006] 285 ITR 74/ [2007] 158 Taxman 199 and Allahabad High Court in the case of Oxford Academy for Career Development v. Chief CIT (2009] 315 1TR 382. 29. All the three High Courts after examining the issue, in the light of the object of Section 12A of the Act and Section 21 of the General Clauses Act held that the order of the CIT passed under Section 12A is quasi-judicial in nature. Second, there was no express provision in the Act vesting the CIT with power of cancellation of registration till 01.10.2004; and lastly, Section 21of the General Clauses Act has no applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
