AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1843
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hearing none appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of issuance of notice for hearing more than one occasion and Ld. Departmental Representative(DR), was present for the appellant Revenue. In the absence of any appearance by the assessee, the appeal is being disposed of ex parte qua the assessee, after hearing Ld. DR for the Revenue on merits in terms of Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate, Tribunal, Rules, 1963. 3. When this appeal was called out for hearing, we note that issue involved in this appeal is covered by the order dated 27/07/2018, passed by the Tribunal in the case of Narbheram Vishram in I.T.A. Nos. 42&43/Kol/2018, for assessment year 2013-14 & 2014-15, whereby the issue of donation u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act has been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act read with Rule 5C and 5E of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In the assessment year 2013-14, the assessee claimed weighted deduction of Rs. 4,81,25,000/- under section 35(1) (ii) of the Act, which is 175% of the amount of donation being the sum of Rs. 2,75,00,000/- in respect of the donation given to 'The School of Human Genetics and Population Health'. We note that the Notifications to this effect, that these two institutions viz: 'Matrivani' and 'SHG', were approved by the Central Government for the purpose of section 35 (1) (ii) of the Act, was published in the Gazette of India. However, the deduction claimed by the assessee was denied by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the allegations contained in the report of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of survey proceedings, in their cases and the extracts of which was provided to the assessee in the show cause notice, the name of the assessee firm does not appear anywhere. It is to be noted that none of those persons implicate the assessee to have made bogus donations and that cash was paid to the donors assessee in lieu of the alleged bogus donation after deducting their commission. We note that the statements of the various parties and persons were recorded behind the back of the assessee and the Assessing Officer did not allow opportunity of cross examination. We note that in absence of opportunity of cross-examination no reliance could be made on such statements to draw any adverse inference against the assessee firm. The assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It should be remembered suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of evidence. The confirmation from Shri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta fortifies the claim of the assessee for weighted deduction u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Act. The sole basis 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 s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, Section 21 of 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. 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 u....