TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1145
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome Tax Act, 1961(in short 'the Act') dated 18.01.2016 passed by the DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata. 2. The registry has informed that the present appeal is time barred by 601 days. The ld. counsel for the assessee prayed for condonation of the delay by submitting the affidavit placed on record. We after perusing the affidavit as well as material available on record found that merit in the contention of the affidavit given by the assessee and keeping the larger interest of justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: "i. For that the orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, erroneous, without proper reasons, invalid and ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income of Rs. 5,77,818/- on 15.06.2015. Subsequently, the Principal Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Kolkata had received information regarding dissemination of beneficiary/bogus donors u/s 35(1)(ii) in the case of School of Human Genetics & Population Health (SGHPH), Matrivani Institute of Experimental Research & Education (MIER&E) & Herbicure Healthcare Bio Herbal Research Foundation (HHBRF) that a survey operation was carried on the above three institutions on the issue of facilitating bogus donation u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act. It was found that the donor/beneficiaries in connivance with these institutes with the active help of brokers/entry operator/bogus billers were engaged in bogus donation syndicate and the donations were returned back....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmission stated that the organisation to whom the donation was paid total (Rs. 4,50,000/-) is still having such registration u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act. However, the AO found that the School of Human Genetics & Population Health (SHGPH) has filed application before Income Tax Settlement commission, Kolkata admitting that the accommodation entries of donations have been provided to the various donors in lieu of meagre amount of service charges from time to time and pass an assessment order stating that assessee has escaped assessment of Rs. 7,87,500/- due to incorrect reflection of income for the relevant year and assessee is involved in bogus trade and showing bogus donation to turn black money and therefore, amount of Rs. 7,87,500/- is adde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al available on record on the identical facts, the Kolkata bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT, Circle- 12(1), Kolkata vs M/s. Maco Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 16/Kol/2017) had held that withdrawal of recognition u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act in the hands of payee organisation would not affect the right and interest of the assessee for claim of deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act. The relevant finding of the ITAT in the case of M/s. Maco Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) reads as follows: 8.3. We find that there is no provision in section 35(1)(ii) of the Act to withdraw the recognition granted to the assessee therein. When there is no provision for withdrawal of recognition in the Act, the action of the revenue in withdrawi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2002] 5 SCC 685. 24. In other words, the order, which can be modified or rescinded by applying Section 21, has to be either executive or legislative in nature whereas the order, which the CIT is required to pass under Section 12A of the Act, is neither legislative nor an executive order but it is a "quasi judicial order". It is for this reason, Section 21 has no application in this case. 25. The general power, under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, to rescind a notification or order has to be understood in the light of the subject matter, context and the effect of the relevant provisions of the statute under which the notification or order is issued and the power is not available after an enforceable right has accrued under the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judicial in nature. Second, there was no express provision in the Act vesting the CIT with power of cancellation of registration till 01.10.2004; and lastly, Section 21of the General Clauses Act has no application to the order passed by the CIT under Section 12A because the order is quasi judicial in nature and it is for all these reasons the CIT had no jurisdiction to cancel the registration certificate once granted by him under Section 12A till the power was expressly conferred on the CIT by Section 12AA(3) of the Act w.e.f. 01.10.2004. We hold that the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court would squarely be applicable to the facts of the instant case. Infact the assessee's case herein falls on a much bet....