2018 (7) TMI 1958

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng grounds:- "1. For that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was wrong and unjustified in confirming the disallowance of deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of Rs. 3,50,000/- on the donation of Rs. 2,00,000/- made to School of Human Genetics & Pollution Health without properly appreciating the submission of the appellant. The court decisions cited by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) are not applicable in the facts of the appellant's case. 2. For that the appellant craves leave to alter, amend, modify any of the grounds and/or take additional ground before or at the time of hearing of this appeal." 2. Heard both the parties. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that from the statement recorded and relied upon by the Assessing Officer of Shri Avijit Si....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d that this amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs from M/s. Zenith Credit Corporation was a bogus transaction. In his rejoinder, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, when Shri Avijit Sinha Roy has in his sworn statement stated that he has left his work of providing bogus donations far back in the year 2011 and hence, the question of his arranging these donations in the year 2014, does not arise. He further pointed out from the statement at page 11 of the assessment order, it is clear that the list was prepared by the revenue authorities and that Shri Avijit SInha Roy has simply signed the list by noting that he has seen the list. He submitted that the list cannot be taken as evidence. He submitted that opportunity of crossexamination has not be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to do even remotely with the healthcare or herbal healthcare industry much less in the area of research thereon and accordingly there was no need for the assessee to give donation of Rs. 14,00,000/- to HHBRF . We find that this aspect has been duly addressed by the assessee by stating that one Cardiologist Doctor had introduced the assessee to HHBRF and donations were given after due satisfaction of the assessee based on personal visits to the two research centres of HHBRF and activities carried on by them. Moreover, it is well settled that it is always the prerogative of the assessee to give or not to give any donation to a particular institution, which wisdom cannot be questioned by the revenue. The question of business expediency of an ....