9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atel, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Urjit Shah , Sr.DR ORDER Per T. R. Senthil Kumar , Judicial Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 31.12.2018 in appeal no. CIT(A)-6/221/18-19 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad [for short Ld. CIT(A)] relating to the assessment year 2014-15. 2. Grounds raised by the assessee as follows: I. Assessment u/s. 147 of the Act 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the re-assessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act on the basis of the observations/findings given in the appellate order. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the impugned assessment order without appreciating the fact th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Healthcare Bio Herbal Research Foundation during the year on the basis of the observations/findings given in the appellate order. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts while confirming the addition failed to appreciate the fact that AO has disallowed the claim u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Act without bringing record any material/evidences which establishes that either donation given by the appellant is bogus or obtained in lieu of commission and as such not allowable as deduction from the income of the appellant. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider the fact that the AO has not been able to provide the cross-examination of the director of the said institution whose statement has been re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erbicure Health Care Bio Herbal Research on (HHBRF) in the F.Y. 2013-14 relevant to the A.Y. 2014-15. Notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 11.11.2016 and reassessment was completed disallowing donation made to Herbicure Health Care Bio Herbal Research Foundation, Kolkatta by the assessee as bogus and claim of the assessee on account of deduction under section 35(1)(ii) to the tune of ₹ 12,25,000/- was disallowed. Aggrieved against reassessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) by a detailed order upheld action of the AO in disallowing deduction of ₹ 12,25,000/- under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act, and thereby dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved against the same, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the judicial pronouncement as relied upon by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee it appears that the issue is squarely covered in favor of the assessee. While dealing with the issue the Coordinate Bench is observed as follows:- 6. We have also carefully considered the judgment passed by the Ld. Tribunal in ITA No. 2318/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2014-15, the relevant portion dealing with the issue is as follows:- 5. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. In the case of S.G. Vat care P. Ltd. (Supra), the Tribunal has recorded the following finding: 2. In the first ground of appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of ₹ 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it came to know about bogus affairs conducted by the donee. Hence, these donations are rightly been treated as bogus, and addition is rightly made. 6. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The AO is harping upon an information supplied by the survey tem of Calcutta. He has not specifically recorded statement of representatives of the donee. He has not brought on record a specific evidence wherein donee has deposed that donations received from the assessee was paid back in cash after deducting commission. On the basis of a general information collected from the donee, the donation made by the assessee cannot be doubted. Neither representatives of the donee have been put to cross-examination, n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
