2019 (10) TMI 1281

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act'). 2. In this case, the assesse filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring the total income of Rs. 4,02,09,744/-. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143 (3) of the Act. Subsequently, information was received from Kolkata Directorate of Investigation to the effect that the three institutions, namely School of Human Genetics & Population Health (SHG & PH), Matrrvani Institute of Experimental Research & Education (MIER & E) and Herbicure Health Care Bio Herbal Research Foundation (HHNBRF), in connivance with the donors/beneficiaries used to help the donors/beneficiaries by receiving money as donation and returning the same to the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the donation given by the appellant to the School of Human Genetics & Population Health amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- was bogus donation, is bad in law.  B) Principles of natural justice violated 4 The learned CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the principles of natural justice were not violated on the AO not giving the appellant an opportunity to cross examine the parties whose statements the AO was relying on. 5 As the principles of natural justice are violated, the appellant prays that your honour hold that the order is bad in law. C) Disallowance deduction claimed u/s 35(1)(ii) of Rs. 1,75,00,000/-. 6. The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the order of the AO holding tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssesse on the ground that the donation received by the School of Human Genetics and Population Health were never utilized for the purpose of scientific research and setting up of new infrastructure. The first Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the AO. However, in the further appeal, the Tribunal deleted the addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A). The contention of the assessee's in the said case was that at the time of making donation to the said institution, the institution was having all requisite certificate/approvals, recognitions, necessary for it being eligible to receipt donation u/s 35(1) (ii) of the Act. The ITAT decided this issue in favour of the assesse holding that subsequent withdrawal of recognition does not affect ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that exactly on identical issues the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal 'B' Bench Kolkata in the case of DCIT vs. Maco Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 16/Kol/2017 vide order dated 14.03.2018 for AY 2013-14 has considered the issue in regard to very same trust i.e. SGHPH and holds that prior to the date of donation under cancellation of registration has happened and there is absolutely no provision of withdrawal of recognition under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Hence, allowed the claim of the assessee by observing in Para 8.1 and 8.5 as under: - "8.1. The brief fact pertaining to SGHPH are as under: - a) SGHPH was recognized vide Gazette Notification dated 28.1.2009 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT in sho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he instant case." 7. Similarly, the another co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, in the case of P.R. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 529/JP/2019 vide order dated 05.07.2018 for AY 2014-15 has considered the same Trust/ institute i.e. SHG&PG and allowed the claim of the assessee. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in the present case also, respectfully following the decision of co-ordinate Bench, we allow the claim of deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. 8. Similar, are the facts in AY 2014-15, hence taking a consistent view we allow the claim of assessee in this year also." 7. The issue involved in the present case is identical to the issue involved in the case of Mahesh C. Thakke....