Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (7) TMI 855

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o. 3CL dt. 21-5- 2015 was received subsequent to the last date for filing of the revised return - HELD THAT:- Revenue s technical arguments fail to evoke are concurrence once it has come on record that the assessee had very well proceeded as per the prescribed authority DSIR s approval. And also that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) have been able to find any fault therein. Faced with this situation and taking note of hon ble apex court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. [ 2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT ] and Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders .[ 2012 (7) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ], we exercise our statutory second appellate jurisdiction to accept the assessee s impugned claim in principle and direct the learned Assessing Officer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... corresponding registration. We note during the course of hearing that the instant issue is no more res integra as the Tribunal learned co-ordinate bench order in revenue s appeal in ITA No. 2419/PUN/2016 (A.Y. 2010-11) has already adjudicated the same against the department as follows: 8. The second and third grounds in the present appeal is directed against the action of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in allowing assessee s claim u/s.80G of the Act in respect of donation of Rs.1,50,00,000/- given to Ashwini Rural Cancer Research and Relief Society. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) granted relief to the assessee on the basis of reasons as contended in Para 6.3 of his order after appreciating the facts of the case, written submissions filed by the assessee a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , the time limit for approval had expired, after the period of 6 months of the application submitted in May, 2009. Moreover, as per the new provisions of Section 80G(5) as applicable w.e.f. 1-10-2009, any Trust which had been granted approval earlier was not required to apply for renewal and such approval would be deemed to continue, until it was specifically withdrawn. Thereupon, no further efforts were made for pursuing the renewal application by the said Trust. 11. In the paper book filed before us on page 41 to 43 wherein a Copy of the I.T. Assessment Order dated 3-3-2014 passed u/s. 143(3) in the case of the Trust for A.Y. 2011-12 as furnished by the Trust has been duly compiled. Para 3 of the said assessment order clearly notes t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... id not claim the weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) in its return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant made the addition claim of Rs. 1,99,33,256/- on the ground that the form No. 3CL dt. 21-5- 2015 was received subsequent to the last date for filing of the revised return. The AO rejected the claim relying on the judgment of supreme Court in the case of Goetz Indi Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC) (2006). 5.2 The appellant during the course of appeal proceedings submitted that CT(A) is empowered to entertain the claim of assessee by relying on the lay High Court decision in the case of ClT Vs. Prithvi Brokers and Shareholders reported in 349 ITR 336 (2012) (Bom). The appellant also filed copies of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion so provided to the appellate authorities to admit the additional claims as held by the High Court in the case of Prithvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt Ltd cited above, is to be exercised judicially and in genuine cases. There is no such case made out in the appellant s case. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise that discretionary power to right the negligence or the casualness of the appellant in approaching the tax matters Therefore, this ground is not admitted and treated as dismissed. 6. Both the learned representatives reiterated their respective stands during the course of hearing. Mr. Walimbe more particularly argued that both the learned lower authorities have rightly held that the assessee is not entitled for the impugne .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates