2021 (7) TMI 194

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3/MUM/2019- A.Y. 2012-13: 2. Shri Piyush Chhajed appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that assessee in ground No. 1 of appeal has assailed reopening of assessment. The assessee does not want to press this legal ground. 3. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that ground No. 2 to 4 of appeal are on merits of addition. The solitary issue raised in this appeal by the assessee is against disallowance of donation of Rs. 2,00,000/- made to School of Human Genetics & Population Health, Kolkata. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that assessee had made donation to the aforesaid Trust on 21/02/2012 and claimed benefit of deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act, 1961....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee counts: (i) on the date of donation, School of Human Genetics & Population Health was holding valid approval; (ii) the Revenue has not brought on record any evidence to show that transaction between the assessee and School of Human Genetics & Population Health is bogus; and (iii) the statement recorded during survey action in the case of School of Human Genetics & Population Health on the basis of which benefit of deduction under section 35(1) of the Act has been withdrawn was never provided to the assessee. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee in support of his contentions placed reliance on various decisions including: (i) CIT vs Chotatingrai Tea & ORS, 258 ITR 529(SC) (ii) Vora Finance Services (P) Ltd. 96 taxm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e for assessment year 2012-13. On 27/01/2015 a survey action was carried out in the case of School of Human Genetics & Population Health, consequently, approval under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act allowed to School of Human Genetics & Population Health was withdrawn by the Department on 21/09/2016. Undisputedly, on the date of donation institute was holding valid approval under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. The assessee has made donation to the institute through banking channel against receipt. The assessee's claim of deduction in return of income was accepted by the Department. The withdrawal notification by the Revenue in 2016 would not operate retrospectively to disallow assessee's claim of deduction under section 35(1) of the Act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the case of National Leather Cloth Manufacturing Co., vs. Indian Council of Agricultural Research(supra), Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd., vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner(supra) and Bhanumati Malraj Kabali vs. ITO(supra). The Tribunal has also been taking consistent view on this issue in allowing assessee's claim of deduction where on the date of donation the donee institute was having valid approval. 7. Thus, in the light of facts of the case and the law expounded by Hon'ble Apex Court, the findings of CIT(A) on assessee's claim of deduction under section 35(1) of the Act are set-aside and ground No. 2 to 4 of the appeal are allowed. 8. In ground No. 1 of appeal, the assessee has challenged validity of notice issue....