TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1357
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmation 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 Learned AR submitted that the above said disallowance has since been deleted by the Division Bench of the Tribunal, vide its order dated 23.3.2022 passed in ITA No. 720/Mum/2021. The Learned AR also furnished a copy of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Tribunal. 4. I have heard learned DR and perused the record. I noticed that identical disallowance made in the hands of the assessee in A.Y. 2012-13 has since been deleted by the Division Bench of the Tribunal, vide its order referred supra. For the sake of convenience I extract below decision referred by the Division Bench in A.Y. 2012-13 :- "5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue envisaged by the Ld. AR that the donation is genuine and duly supported with the facts and the material information to substantiat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view that mere admission on the part of the office bearers of the body/trust, the assessee cannot be penalized and the amount of donations claimed by the assessee on account of payment to the said school cannot be denied. In the case of Narbheram Vishram Qua, ITA No.42&43/Kol/2018, order dated 27.07.2018, the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal under similar circumstances and facts has held as under:- "13 we have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, we note that the assesses has 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 Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Id DR for the Revenue is that since the registration had been cancelled by the CBDT, with retrospective effect that is, with effect from 1sl April 2007, by issuing notification dated 06.09.2016, for both the institutions viz: 'Matrivani' and 'The School of Human Genetics and Population Health', therefore these institutions are not entitled to claim benefit under section 35 (1) (ii) of the Act. We note that the withdrawal of recognition u/s 35(l)(ii) of the Act in the hands of the payee organizations would not affect the rights and interests of the assesses herein for claim of weighted deduction u/s 35(1 )(ii) of the Act, for that we rely on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench, Kolkata, in the case of M/s Maco Corporation India (P) Ltd, ITA No.l6/Kol/2017, for Assessment Year 2013-14, wherein it was held as follows: "29. All the three High Courts after examining the issue, in the light of the object of Section 12A of the Act and Section 21 of the General Clauses Act held that the order of the CIT passed under Section 12A is quasi judicial in nature. Second, there was no express provision in the Act vesting the CIT with power of cancellation of regis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....35(1)(ii) of the Act. The facts before us being materially same involving the same school, namely, "The School of Human Genetics and 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 as its object the undertaking of scientific research or to a university, college or other institution to be used for scientific research : Provided that such association, university, college or other institution for the purposes of this clause- (A) is for the time being approved, in accordance with....