TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1827
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order. The reasons given by the revenue authorities in this case is the same as in the case of the Narbheram Vishram vs. DCIT in ITA No. 42 & 43/Kol/2018; Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15, order dt. 27/07/2018 3. After hearing rival contentions, we find that an identical issue has been considered by the 'B' Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Narbheram Vishram vs. DCIT in ITA No. 42 & 43/Kol/2018; Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15, order dt. 27/07/2018, wherein an identical claim made of a donation to "The School of Human Genetics and Population Health", was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A), upheld the same. The Tribunal at para 13 onwards held as follows:- "13 We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, we note that the assessee has challenged disallowance of weighted deduction of Rs. 4,81,25,000/- for A.Y. 2013-14 and disallowance of weighted deduction of Rs. 10,50,00,000/-, for A.Y. 2014-15, claimed by him under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act in respect ofthe amounts of donations made to two Institutions viz. 'Matrivani Institute Experimental Research & Education' (hereinafter referred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee categorically denied that it ever received back the amounts of donations in cash or in kind from the said Institutions and from any person whatsoever in lieu of the various amounts donated to these two institutions. We note that in the statements, of key persons and alleged brokers recorded by the Investigation Wing in course of survey proceedings, in their cases and the extracts of which was provided to the assessee in the show cause notice, the name of the assessee firm does not appear anywhere. It is to be noted that none of those persons implicate the assessee to have made bogus donations and that cash was paid to the donors assessee in lieu of the alleged bogus donation after deducting their commission. We note that the statements of the various parties and persons were recorded behind the back of the assessee and the Assessing Officer did not allow opportunity of cross examination. We note that in absence of opportunity of cross-examination no reliance could be made on such statements to draw any adverse inference against the assessee firm. The assessee firm denied its knowledge of the statements made by these institutes which were relied on by the Investigation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce of the ld DR for the Revenue is that since the registration had been cancelled by the CBDT, with retrospective effect that is, with effect from 1st April 2007, by issuing notification dated 06.09.2016, for both the institutions viz: 'Matrivani' and 'The School of Human Genetics and Population Health', therefore these institutions are not entitled to claim benefit under section 35 (1) (ii) of the Act. We note that the withdrawal of recognition u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act in the hands of the payee organizations would not affect the rights and interests of the assessee herein for claim of weighted deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act, for that we rely on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench, Kolkata, in the case of M/s Maco Corporation India (P) Ltd, ITA No.16/Kol/2017, for Assessment Year 2013-14, wherein it was held as follows: "29. All the three High Courts after examining the issue, in the light of the object of Section 12A of the Act and Section 21 of the General Clauses Act held that the order of the CIT passed under Section 12A is quasi judicial in nature. Second, there was no express provision in the Act vesting the CIT with power of cancellation of registration till 01.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....man Genetics and Population Health, Kolkata granting approval u/s 35 (1) (ii) of the Act. This recognition was originally granted on 28th January, 2010 and renewed on 17th June, 2010 by Government of India . Ministry of Science and Technology. In response to letter dated 03.02.2014 given by M/s. School of Human Genetics and Population Health, to the assessee, donation of Rs. 15,00,000/- was made on 31.03.2014 by the assessee. The said amount was given to the donee on 31.03.2014 and withdrawal was on 15.09.2016. i.e. after 17 months from the date of donation made in March, 2014. Such withdrawal in my view cannot take away the vested right of the assessee for claiming deduction under Section 35 (1) of the Act. 6. The Tribunal in the case of Rajda Polymers vide ITA No.333/Kol/2017 order dated 08.11.2017 at page 7 has held as follows :- "5.6. We find that the ld CITA had made an observation which has been heavily relied upon by the ld DR that the assessee's line of business has got nothing 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....