9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 2005X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted back to the file of the AO. AO shall re-examine the issue in the light of the material that may be filed by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. Disallowance u/s 35(1)(ii) - weighted deduction in respect of the donation made to Shri Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research Trust - According to revenue assessee was misrepresented by the Trust saying that the approval granted for deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act was renewed and a forged gazette notification was also said to be obtained by the Trust - HELD THAT:- Shri Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research Trust was not recognized beyond 31.03.2006. Forged document has been filed before the authorities to misrepresent as if the said Trust was recognized beyond 31.03.2006. Moreover, it is also not the case of the assessee that the recognition was extended beyond 31.03.2006. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. When the Trust was not renewed beyond 31.03.2006, it is not known what made the assessee to make donation. Allowability of business loss / expenditure u/s 37(1) - The assessee now cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of transfer of shares, therefore, not eligible for deduction. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee. According to the Ld. D.R., the shares were, in fact, transferred on 30.09.2013. The other Director also claimed similar exemption on the transfer of shares of M/s Ordain Health Care Global Pvt. Ltd. The other Director claimed that the transfer took place on 30.09.2013. However, according to the Ld. D.R., the assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that the transfer took place on 08.10.2013. According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee himself accepted in the computation statement that the transfer took place on 30.09.2013. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee. Referring to page 5 of the paper-book, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee specifically stated that the date of sale of shares was 30.09.2013, therefore, now the assessee cannot take a different stand. 3. On the contrary, Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that no doubt, at page 5 of the paper-book in the computation of income, the assessee wrongly stated that the date of transfer was 30.09 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the issue in the light of the material that may be filed by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 6. The next issue arises for consideration is disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. 7. Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee has filed an application under Rule 27 of Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The Ld.counsel submitted that the assessee claimed weighted deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act before the Assessing Officer in respect of the donation made to Shri Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research Trust. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee was misrepresented by the Trust saying that the approval granted for deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act was renewed. A forged gazette notification was also said to be obtained by the Trust. According to the Ld. counsel, the Assessing Officer subsequently found that the Trust was not approved by the Government of India as scientific and industrial organi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd perused the relevant material available on record. The CIT(Appeals) proceeded on the presumption that the CBDT approval was extended upto 31st March, 2019. In fact, the CBDT clarified by notification dated 14th December, 2018 that the approval was not extended beyond 31.03.2006. It is not known from where the CIT(Appeals) found that the CBDT s approval was extended upto 31st March, 2019. It is also not the case of the assessee that Shri Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research Trust was recognized beyond 31.03.2006. The assessee claims that on the basis of forged document, the Trust misrepresented, therefore, now making an alternative claim by making application under Rule 27 of Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. 10. We have carefully gone through the circular of the CBDT dated 14.12.2018. For the purpose of convenience, we are reproducing the same as follows:- 8 I.T.A. No.2205/Chny/17 F.No. 225/351/2018-ITA (II) Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes **** Room N0. 245A, North Block New Delhi, the 14th December, 2018 To All Principal Chief Commissioners of Income Tax All Director Generals of Income Tax (Inves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e effectively used and assessment orders should be passed under the monitoring of supervisory authorities. 6. This issues with approval of Member (IT C), CBDT. Yours faithfully , (Rajarajeswari R.) Under Secretary (ITA.II) 11. In view of the above, it is obvious that Shri Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research Trust was not recognized beyond 31.03.2006. Forged document has been filed before the authorities to misrepresent as if the said Trust was recognized beyond 31.03.2006. Moreover, it is also not the case of the assessee that the recognition was extended beyond 31.03.2006. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. When the Trust was not renewed beyond 31.03.2006, it is not known what made the assessee to make donation. 12. The assessee now claims that he is a science graduate connected with pharmaceutical research and consultancy, therefore, it has to be allowed as business loss / expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the claim of the assessee cannot be allowed under Section 37(1) of the Act also. The payment was admittedly said to be made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
