9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim of deduction under section 35(1) in A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee would be eligible for benefit of weighted deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) in assessment year 2012-13. Subsequent withdrawal of approval under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act from the institution by the Department would not prejudice the assessee's claim of donation in the impugned assessment year. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Chotatingrai Tea Ors [ 2002 (10) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] where the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 35CCA and the same was withdrawn by the Department on the ground that approval granted by the prescribed authority to the society to whom assessee had made donations was withdrawn with retrospective effect, the Hon'ble C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt 'the CIT(A)'] for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2014-15. Both the impugned order are of even date i.e. 02/01/2018. Since, grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals are identical they are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. ITA NO. 5713/MUM/2019- A.Y. 2012-13: 2. Shri Piyush Chhajed appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that assessee in ground No. 1 of appeal has assailed reopening of assessment. The assessee does not want to press this legal ground. 3. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that ground No. 2 to 4 of appeal are on merits of addition. The solitary issue raised in this appeal by the assessee is against disallowan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Government in respect of above institution vide O.M dated 21/09/2016. The assessment in the case of assessee was reopened on 27/10/2016. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee contended that the Revenue has erred in disallowing assessee's claim of deduction on donation retrospectively on three counts: (i) on the date of donation, School of Human Genetics Population Health was holding valid approval; (ii) the Revenue has not brought on record any evidence to show that transaction between the assessee and School of Human Genetics Population Health is bogus; and (iii) the statement recorded during survey action in the case of School of Human Genetics Population Health on the basis of which benefit of deduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue raised in the present appeal is disallowance of weighted deduction under section 35(1) of the Act to the assessee. The assessee had made donation of ₹ 2,00,000/- on 21/02/2012 to School of Human Genetics Population Health and has claimed weighted deduction of ₹ 3,50,000/- under section 35(1) of the Act in the return of income for assessment year 2012-13. On 27/01/2015 a survey action was carried out in the case of School of Human Genetics Population Health, consequently, approval under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act allowed to School of Human Genetics Population Health was withdrawn by the Department on 21/09/2016. Undisputedly, on the date of donation institute was holding valid approval under section 35(1)(ii) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch it was donated. Furthermore, the deduction was allowed on the certificate furnished and it was not for the assessee to show whether the institution to which the money had been donated was carrying, on the rural development work, as envisaged under section 35CCA of the Act.' Similar view has been expressed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of National Leather Cloth Manufacturing Co., vs. Indian Council of Agricultural Research(supra), Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd., vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner(supra) and Bhanumati Malraj Kabali vs. ITO(supra). The Tribunal has also been taking consistent view on this issue in allowing assessee's claim of deduction where on the date of donation the donee institute was ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
