TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 243
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....surer pursuant to survey u/s I 33A of The Income Tax Act, 1961 carried out on the institute, donee without making any further inquiry. It is also submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer did not have any specific evidence against the - Appellant to prove that the Appellant has received any cash against the donation paid to the institute, the donee. The Appellant submits that the donation of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- be treated as genuine. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - Thane erred in upholding the denial of deduction of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer in respect of the donation made to the institute and eligible for deduction u/s 35 (1) (ii) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 with valid registration on the ground that the same exemption granted to the institute withdrawn subsequently. The Appellant submits that the exemption of Rs, 1,75,00,000/- claimed u/s 35 (1) (ii) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 be allowed. 3. Each Ground of Appeal hereinabove is independent and without prejudice to each other. 4. The Appellant craves leave to reserve to itself the right to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bank, Branch : Chowringhee ; and (ix) copy of the Resolution No. SOH/RES/004/12-13, dated 23.05.2012 issued by the governing body authorising Dr. Samadrita Mukherjee Sardar, the then secretary and Ms. Moumita Raghvan, treasurer, as the authorized persons. However, the A.O was not persuaded to subscribe to the genuineness of the aforesaid claim of deduction raised by the assessee. It was observed by the A.O that a survey operation conducted under Sec. 133A of the Act on 27.01.2015 in the case of SHG&PH, had revealed, that the said research institution had indulged into providing accommodation entries of bogus donations to the donors through a network of brokers. It was gathered by the A.O that Smt. Samadrita Mukherjee Sardar, Secretary, had admitted in her statement that was recorded in the course of the survey proceedings on 27.01.2015 under Sec. 131(1) of the Act, that the aforesaid institution i.e SHG&PH in lieu of commission was providing accommodation entries of bogus donations through a network of market brokers. Also, it was noticed by the A.O that Shri Pinaki Pal, accountant of SHG&PH in the course of the survey proceedings was found to be in possession of a number of messa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve efforts of the investigation wing the modalities of the transactions carried out by the aforesaid institution were completely exposed. Also, it was noticed by him that before the Settlement Commission, Kolkata the aforesaid institution viz. SHG&PH had admitted that they had indulged in providing accommodation entries in the guise of bogus donations and had also elaborated upon the modus operandi that was adopted by them. On the basis of his aforesaid observations, the A.O held a conviction that the sole intention and object of the institution was not to promote any scientific activity by pegging the donation at a realistic level, but to bring in the amount of unaccounted funds in the guise of bogus donations. In the backdrop of his aforesaid observations, the A.O disallowed the assesse"s claim of weighted deduction under Sec. 35(1)(ii) of Rs. 1.75 crore. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). It was observed by the CIT(A) that the then secretary and treasurer of SHG&PH in their respective statements recorded during the course of the survey proceedings, had admitted, that they had provided accommodation entries to the donors. Also, it was obs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mum/2019, AY.2013-14 and 2014-15, dated 24.04.2019 7. Kitchen Essential Vs. ACIT, Thane, ITA 6672 & 6673/Mum/2013, A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15, dated 15.01.2019. 8. M/s Avis Life Care Pvt. ltd .Vs. DCIT, Jaipur, ITA 989/JP/2018, AY 2014-15, dated 20.06.2019. 9. Narbheram Vishram Vs. DCIT Central Circle, Kolkata, ITA 42 & 43/Kol/2018, AY. 2013-14 and 2014-15, dated 27.07.2018 10. DCIT, Kolkata Vs. M/s Maco Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA 16/Kol/2017, AY.2013-14, dated 14.03.2018. 11. Rajda Ploymers Vs. DCIT Kolkata, ITA 333/Kol/2017, AY. 2013-14, dated 08.11.2017 Accordingly, it was averred by the ld. A.R, that as the issue involved in the present appeal was squarely covered by the aforesaid orders of the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal, therefore, the lower authorities were in error in dislodging the assesses claim for deduction under Sec. 35(1)(ii) of the Act. 5. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short "D.R") relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld. D.R that since the institution viz. SHG&PH to which donation was given by the assessee was found to be a bogus institution, which was not doing any research activity b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g of donation by the assessee was having a valid approval granted under the Act. On a perusal of the aforesaid "Explanation" to Sec. 35(1)(ii) of the Act, it can safely be gathered that a subsequent withdrawal of such approval cannot form a reason to deny deduction claimed by the donor. By way of an analogy, we may herein observe that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chotatingrai Tea (2003) 126 taxman 399 (SC), while dealing with Sec. 35CCA of the Act, had concluded, that a retrospective withdrawal of an approval granted by a prescribed authority would not lead to invalidation of the assesses claim of deduction. On a similar footing, we find, that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of National Leather Cloth Mfg. Co. Vs. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (2000) 100 Taxman 511 (Bom), while dealing with an identical issue of denial of deduction under Sec.35(1)(ii) of the Act due to a subsequent withdrawal of approval with retrospective effect, had observed, that such retrospective cancellation of registration will have no effect upon the deduction claimed by the donor since such donation was given acting upon the registration when it was valid and opera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in short), Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Government of India, u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act. b) SGHPH was also recognized as a scientific industrial research organization (SIRO) by Ministry of Science & Technology, Government of India. The renewal of recognition as SIRO by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research under the Scheme on Recognition of Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation , 1988 was made for the period from 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2013 vide communication in F.No. 14/473/2007-TU-V dated 17.6.2010. 8.2. At the outset, we find that the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006 with 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 withdraw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1962, which envisages the procedure for pronouncement of orders, provides as follows: (5) The pronouncement may be in any of the following manners:- (a) The Bench may pronounce the order immediately upon the conclusion of the hearing. (b) In case where the order is not pronounced immediately on the conclusion of the hearing, the Bench shall give a date for pronouncement. In a case where no date of pronouncement is given by the Bench, every endeavour shall be made by the Bench to pronounce the order within 60 days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do on the ground of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of the case, the Bench shall fix a future day for pronouncement of the order, and such date shall not ordinarily be a day beyond a further period of 30 days and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given on the notice board. As such, "ordinarily" the order on an appeal should be pronounced by the bench within no more than 90 days from the date of concluding the hearing. It is, however, important to note that the expression "ordinarily" has been used in the said rule itself. This rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w more days prior to, and after, the lockdown by observing that "In case the limitation expired after 15.03.2020 then the period from 15.03.2020 till the date on which the lockdown is lifted in the jurisdictional area where the dispute lies or where the cause of action arises shall be extended for a period of 15 days after the lifting of lockdown". Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in an order dated 15th April 2020, has, besides extending the validity of all interim orders, has also observed that, "It is also clarified that while calculating time for disposal of matters made time-bound by this Court, the period for which the order dated 26th March 2020 continues to operate shall be added and time shall stand extended accordingly", and also observed that "arrangement continued by an order dated 26th March 2020 till 30th April 2020 shall continue further till 15th June 2020". It has been an unprecedented situation not only in India but all over the world. Government of India has, vide notification dated 19th February 2020, taken the stand that, the coronavirus "should be considered a case of natural calamity and FMC (i.e. force majeure clause) maybe invoked, wherever considered appropriate,....