TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1357
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee had given donation of Rs. 10 lakhs to M/s. Herbicure Health Care Bio Herbal Research Foundation (HHBRF). The above said institution was eligible under section 35 of the Act and accordingly the assessee claimed weighted deduction of Rs.17.50 lakhs under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act against the donation of Rs.10.00 lakhs paid by it. The Assessing Officer disallowed claim on the basis of certain information shared by the Investigation wing and the said disallowance was confirmed by learned CIT(A). The Learned AR submitted that the assessee had given donation to the above said institution in the year relevant to assessment year 2012-13 also and in that year also, deduction claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act was disallowed. The L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otilal Dahyabhai Jhaveri & sons Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 3453/Mum/2018 dt. 24.4.2019) * Borsad Tobacco Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 2040/Mum/2018 dt. 17.6.2019) * Kitchen Essentials Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 6672&6673/Mum/2013 dt. 15.1.2019) 10. Per contra, learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 11. Upon careful consideration we note that identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee in the aforesaid decisions of the ITAT. We may refer to the decision in the case of Kitchen Essentials (supra) as under :- "We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record including the decisions cited by the Id. AR. The undisputed facts are that the assessee has made donations of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s challenged disallowance of weighted deduction of Rs. 4,81,25,000/- for A.Y. 2013-14 and disallowance of weighted deduction of Rs.10,50,00,000/-, for A.Y. 2014-15, claimed by him under section 35(l)(ii) of the Act in respect of the amounts of donations made to two Institutions viz. 'Matrivani Institute Experimental Research & Education' (hereinafter referred to as 'Matrivani') and 'The School of Human Genetics and Population Health' (hereinafter referred to as 'SHG'). The Assessee Firm in A.Y. 2014-15, made donation of Rs,2,00,00,000/ to Matrivani and Rs,4,00,00,000/ to SHG and claimed weighted deduction Assessing Officer. We note that not providing the opportunity of cross examination is against the princip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the addition/disallowance based on statement recorded on oath during survey cannot be allowed as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kader Khan & sons (supra). Moreover, we note that if the AO was hell bent determined to disallow the claim of the assessee, then he should have granted an opportunity to cross examine Shri Swapan Ranjan Das Gupta and Shri Kishan Bhawasingka as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber (supra). 11. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we cannot sustain the order of the authorities below. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and direct the AO to allow the deduction of Rs.26,28,500/- u/s. 35(l)(ii) of the Act. 15. Now, we deal with the arguments of Id DR for the Revenue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration certificate once granted by him under Section 12A till the power was expressly conferred on the CIT by Section I2AAC3) 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. In fact the assessee's case herein falls on a much better footing than the facts before the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the case before Hon'ble Apex Court, the power of cancellation of registration us 12A of the Act was conferred by the Act on the Id CIT w.e.f. 1.10.2004 and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that prior to that date , no cancellation of registration could happen. But in the instant case, there is absolutely no provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Population Health", we, therefore, respectfully following the decisions of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal, hold that the deduction u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act cannot be denied to the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the AO to grant deduction u/s.35(1 )(ii) of the Act. Appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-2014 (ITA No.6672/Mum/2017) is hereby allowed." 12. We note that facts in the present case are identical. The withdrawal of the approval to the payee has taken place subsequent to the payment by the assessee. The assessee's case duly follows under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act which read as under :- Section 35(1)(ii) : an amount equal to one and one half times of any sum paid to a research association which has a....