TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 1048
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1. The Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous, illegal, arbitrary, unjust and liable to be set aside. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravely erred in summarily dismissing the appeal without appreciating the facts of the case in proper perspective. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered that the withdrawal of approval to the School of Human Genetics and Population Health was withdrawn only on 15.09.2016 and the Appellant could not be denied deduction u/s 35(1 )(ii) of the Act, for contribution made when the approval was in force. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the Appellant had satisfied all the conditions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Assessing Officer also concluded that the approval of Institution namely SHG&PH has been withdrawn by CBDT w.e.f. 01.04.2007 vide notification dated SO 2961(E) 82 of 2016 dated 15.09.2016. Thus, further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. 4. We have heard the submission of ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee and ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue and perused the material available on record. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee during the relevant period to the Assessment Year under consideration paid a contribution of Rs. 1.50 Crore to the Institution namely SHG&PH, an Institution approved by Central Government vide notice no. 4/201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n was withdrawn. Once the approval of the institution is withdrawn the assessee is not entitled for weighted deduction under section 35(1) (ii). 6. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We have noted that during the assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer noted that in Profit & Loss Account, the assessee has debited donation of Rs. 1.50 Crore to SHG&PH and claimed weighted deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of Rs. 2.62 Crore (175% of total donation). The assessee was asked to produce the acknowledgement receipt, registration details of society/Institution, approval under section 3591)(ii) and to prove the genuineness. The assessee was also informed that a survey ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Institution passed the following order: "6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we find that the ld AR placed on record the copy of the Notification No. 4/2010 (F.No. 203/64/2009/ITA-II) dated 28.1.2010 issued by CBDT to SHGPH recognizing them u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act from Asst Year 2008- 09 onwards. The ld AR also placed on record a copy of the Notification issued by CBDT dated 15.9.2016 withdrawing the recognition of approval granted u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act to SHGPH with retrospective effect from 1.4.2007. Admittedly, the assessee had given donation to SHGPH on 6.3.2013 for Rs. 15,00,000/- ( 175% of 15 lacs is Rs. 26,25,000) and on 22.1.2014 for Rs. 12,00,000/- (175....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th retrospective effect from 1.4.2006 had introduced an Explanation in Section 35 of the Act which reads as under:- Section 35(1)(ii) - Explanation The deduction, to which the assessee is entitled in respect of any sum paid to a research association, university, college or other institution to which clause (ii) or clause (iii) applies, shall not be denied merely on the ground that, subsequent to the payment of such sum by the assessee, the approval granted to the association, university, college or other institution referred to in clause (ii) or clause (iii) has been withdrawn. Hence the aforesaid provisions of the Act are very clear that the payer (the assessee herein) would not get affected if the recognition granted to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. We also find that the ld AR had rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of National reported in (2000) 110 Taxman 511 (Bom) dated 7.10.1999 in the context of withdrawal of deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act due to withdrawal of recognition with retrospective effect . In any case, we find that the provisions of section 35(1)(ii) of the Act vide its Explanation reproduced hereinabove clearly proves that the donor (i.e assessee herein) cannot be affected due to subsequent withdrawal of recognition with retrospective effect. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions and the provisions of the Act, we direct the ld AO to grant deduction u/s 35....