TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 1139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... I. Assessment u/s. 147 of the Act 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the re-assessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act on the basis of the observations/findings given in the appellate order. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the impugned assessment order without appreciating the fact that notice u/s. 148 of the Act on the basis of which the proceedings have been reopened being itself bad in law and invalid since there is no escapement of income at all as defined in section 147 of the Act which is a condition precedent for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider the fact that the re-assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r donation given by the appellant is bogus or obtained in lieu of commission and as such not allowable as deduction from the income of the appellant. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider the fact that the AO has not been able to provide the cross-examination of the director of the said institution whose statement has been relied upon for drawing adverse inference in the case of the appellant as on the given date of cross examination he did not turned up in response to the summons issued by the department. The appellant submits this being the case, the impugned addition made by the AO and as confirmed by the learned CIT(A) as per the settled law is against the principle of natural justice and eq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 35(1)(ii) to the tune of Rs. 12,25,000/- was disallowed. Aggrieved against reassessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) by a detailed order upheld action of the AO in disallowing deduction of Rs. 12,25,000/- under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act, and thereby dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on two grounds, viz. (i) validity of reopening of the assessment, and (ii) disallowance of deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. 4. During the course of hearing, the assessee has not pressed ground no. 1 viz. validity of reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS "Not pressed". 5. So ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he relevant portion dealing with the issue is as follows:- "5. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. In the case of S.G. Vat care P. Ltd. (Supra), the Tribunal has recorded the following finding: 2. In the first ground of appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 8,75,000/- on account of alleged bogus donation to Herbicure Healthcare Bio- Herbal Research Foundation. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income on 20.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs. 4,47,910/-. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed that the assessee-company has given donation to Herbicure Healthcare Bio-Herbal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement of representatives of the donee. He has not brought on record a specific evidence wherein donee has deposed that donations received from the assessee was paid back in cash after deducting commission. On the basis of a general information collected from the donee, the donation made by the assessee cannot be doubted. Neither representatives of the donee have been put to cross-examination, nor any specific reply deposing that such donation was not received, or if received the same was repaid in cash, has been brought on record. In the absence of such circumstances, donation given by the assessee to the donee, on which the assessee no mechanism to check the veracity, can be doubted, more particularly, when certificate to obtain donation h....