9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has held that assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 35 of the Act in respect of donation given to M/s. Herbicure Health Care Bio Herbal Research Foundation since the donations were given by the assessee and at that point of time, the donee was identified as an eligible institute and fell within the statutory eligibility criteria. The ITAT further observed that the certificate for receiving donation was cancelled only on 05.09.2016 in respect of HHBFR and therefore, the claim of deduction could not be disallowed in the hands of the assessee for A.Y. 2014-15, when the registration for receiving donation was still in existence. In the case of CIT vs. Punjab Tyres [ 1986 (7) TMI 77 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] held that when an amount is surrendered to purchase peace, or for other similar reason, such surrender cannot amount to admission, constituting evidence of concealment in penalty proceedings. The High Court held that unless there is any evidence showing that assessee had consciously concealed particulars of his income, any admission made by him surrendering the said particular amount as his income would not by itself justify imposition of penalty. Accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Counsel for the assessee submitted that there are two reasons for delay in filing of the present appeal. Firstly, an affidavit has been filed stating that the delay in filing of appeal was owning to mistake of the accountant-cumclerk working in the office of M/s. Minesh Sanjay, C.A., who was assigned the relevant papers relating to filing of appeal of the present case. Mr. Gaurang Chandrakant Trivedi, accountant-cum-clerk submitted that the said From No. 36 and grounds of appeal relating to the present appeal were misplaced by him inadvertently. Further, during the month of March 2021, when the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was to come to an end, the assessee required about the possibility of settlement of said appeal before ITAT to be covered under the VSV Scheme on the belief that appeal is pending before ITAT Ahmedabad. However, it was only then that it was discovered that there had been a lapse in filing of the present appeal by Shri Gaurang C. Trivedi and thereafter, appeal was filed with immediate effect before ITAT Ahmedabad. Looking into the facts leading to delay in filing of the present appeal, we are of the considered view that delay in filing of the present appeal has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Madhusudhanan Vs. CIT 251 ITR 99 (SC). Further, Additional income is response to notice u/s. 148, penalty on additional income confirmed in the case laws. PC Joseph Bros. Vs. CIT 2443 ITR 818 (Ker.) Narain Das Suraj Bhan Vs. CST 21 STC 104 (SC) 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by CIT(A) upholding the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to Page 3 of the assessment order in which, the Assessing Officer has observed that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 07.03.2017 in response to which, the assessee filed return of income on 04.04.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 15,13,168/-. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that reasons recorded for re-opening of the case under Section 147 of the Act were provided to the assessee on 19.04.2017. Accordingly, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had filed its return of income prior to the date of receipt of reasons recorded for re-opening the case under Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, clearly it cannot be said that in the instant facts, the assessee had knowledge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct on 04.04.2017 whereas the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act were provided to the assessee on 19.04.2017. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the reasons for reopening of assessment were known to the assessee at the time when return was filed by the assessee in response to notice under Section 147 of the Act withdrawing the claim of deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. We observe that the ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of S. G. Vat Care Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1943/Ahd/2017 vide order dated 15.01.2019 has held that assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 35 of the Act in respect of donation given to M/s. Herbicure Health Care Bio Herbal Research Foundation since the donations were given by the assessee on 25.03.2014 and at that point of time, the donee was identified as an eligible institute and fell within the statutory eligibility criteria. The ITAT further observed that the certificate for receiving donation was cancelled only on 05.09.2016 in respect of HHBFR and therefore, the claim of deduction could not be disallowed in the hands of the assessee for A.Y. 2014-15, when the registration for receiving donation was still i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
