2001 (2) TMI 878 - AT - Income Tax

Assessing Officer's Decision Upheld on Section 80G Deduction for Donation in Exchange for Seat

Manoj Kumar Versus Income-tax Officer

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to disallow a deduction claimed under section 80G by the assessee for a donation made in exchange for ... Deductions Issues:1. Disallowance of deduction on account of donation under section 80G by the Assessing Officer.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the order of the DCIT (Appeals) regarding the disallowance of a deduction claimed under section 80G by the assessee. The issue revolved around whether the Assessing Officer was justified in disallowing the deduction on the grounds that the donation made by the assessee was not voluntary and was made in exchange for securing a seat in Mechanical Engineering. The Assessing Officer contended that such a donation did not qualify as a donation for the purpose of deduction under section 80G. The appeal was dismissed based on the same ground, leading to the filing of the present appeal.During the hearing, the counsel for the assessee argued that the donation was indeed a pure and simple donation, refuting the Assessing Officer's presumption that it was given to secure a seat in an Engineering College. It was further contended that the issue was not suitable for prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a). On the other hand, the Departmental Representative presented a receipt issued by Vasavi Academy of Education, indicating that the donation was for a specific purpose - a seat in Mechanical Engineering for a named individual. This led to the argument that the payment was not a donation but a grant for a quid pro quo, making it ineligible for deduction under section 80G.The Tribunal examined the nature of the donation and the contents of the receipt. It was established that for a payment to qualify as a donation under section 80G, it must be voluntary and without any material return. The Tribunal noted that the payment made by the assessee was not a gratuitous donation but a payment for a specific purpose, constituting a quid pro quo arrangement. Consequently, it was deemed that the donation did not fall within the parameters of section 80G for deduction. Thus, the Assessing Officer's decision to make a prima facie adjustment based on the nature of the donation was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed that the donation in question did not meet the criteria to be considered a donation under section 80G for deduction purposes. The decision to disallow the deduction by the Assessing Officer was deemed justified, and the appeal filed by the assessee was consequently dismissed.