TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1763
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee read are as under :- "1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in not assigning reasons for rejecting the submissions of the appellant made before him, and thereby failed in passing a speaking order. 2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the denial by the AO to the demand made by the appellant for cross examination of the parties on whose statement the AO was placing reliance for making the impugned disallowance, resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice rendering the impugned Order invalid in law. 3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming disallowance of the claim of the Appellant made under s.35(1)(ii) the I.T.Act, 1961 for Rs. 87,50,000/- by upholding the conclusion of the AO that the contribution of Rs. 50,00,000/- to School of Human Genetics & Population Health was not genuine 4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) was justified in accepting the theory of the AO based on the of preponderance of probabili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cuments indicating approval granted to SHG & PH for eligibility to accept donations. Accordingly, the AO issued a show cause notice to the assessee to which the assessee replied, however, the AO did accept the explanation of the assessee for the various reasons stated in the assessment order and disallowed the claim of deduction of donation of Rs. 87,50,000/- by holding that the entire activities of the trust are sham and not genuine by relying on the decision in the case of Jankinath Sarangi vs. State of Orissa, Union of India , Anr. Vs..P.K. Roy & Ors. And Sumati Dayal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1995) 80 Taxman 89 and framed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 30.12.2016. 5. Being aggrieved with the assessment order passed by the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), however, the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 6. Ld. AR before us submitted that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the various decisions of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal, wherein the coordinate benches have decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Ld. AR also referred to the decision of Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 87,50,000/- being 175% of the amount paid. A survey was conducted at the office premises of the school namely, "The School of Human Genetics and Population Health" u/s.133A of the Act on 27.01.2015 and it was observed by the survey team that this institute in connivance with donors, brokers and accommodation entry providers has indulged in a duvious scheme of tax evasion, under which bogus donations were received from donors and money used to be returned back to the donors in lieu of commission, even while the donor availed of deductions u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act. The registration of the institution was cancelled by the Government of India with retrospective effect and it was held that the institution has misused the exemption. However, under similar facts and circumstances, various coordinate benches have taken the view that mere admission on the part of the office bearers of the body/trust, the assessee cannot be penalized and the amount of donations claimed by the assessee on account of payment to the said school cannot be denied. In the case of Narbheram Vishram Gua, ITA No.42&43/Kol/2018, order dated 27.07.2018, the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal under similar circumstances and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, the sums paid to "Matrivani1 and "SHG, were genuine donations and both of the Institutions were admittedly registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We note that both of the said two Institutions viz, "Matrivani" and "SHG", are Scientific Research Association approved as such by Central Government under section 35(l)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Notification, bearing No. 229/2007 (F.No.203/135/2007/ITA-II) dated 21.08.2007 and Notification No. 4/2010 (F. No. 2B/A/2009,/ITA-II dated 28.01.2010 respectively, published in Official Gazette of India. The 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hell bent determined to disallow the claim of the assessee, then he should have granted an opportunity to cross examine Shri Swapan Ranjan Das Gupta and Shri Kishan Bhawasingka as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber (supra). 11. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we cannot sustain the order of the authorities below. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and direct the AO to allow the deduction ofRs. 26,28,500/- u/s. 35(l)(ii) of the Act. 15. Now, we deal with the arguments of Id DR for the Revenue. We note that the solitary grievance of the Id DR for the Revenue is that since the registration had been cancelled by the CBDT, with retrospective effect that is, with effect from 1sl 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(l)(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 weight....