TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the reasons recorded by the AO do not justify the reopening the assessment. 3. That the CIT(A)- I was not justified in confirming the order of the AO which was based purely on change of opinion. 4. That in any case the confirmation of the order by CIT( A)-I is against the law and facts of the case. 5. That the learned CIT(A)- I has erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction u/s 35(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 already allowed in original assessment on the basis of the evidence produced before the AO. 6. That the learned CIT(A)- I has grossly erred in confirming the disallowance ignoring the fact that the payment made was a bonafide one. 7. That the learned CIT(A)- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entries / accommodation entries and hence on account of this wrong claim, the Income of Rs. 62,50,000/- equivalent to the amount of admissible deduction u/s 35(1)(II) has escaped assessment. Further perusal of the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer (copy enclosed at page no....) dated 14.12.2009 it has been mentioned that some persons named in the CBI Charge sheet have established a bogus / fake trust and are involved in fraudulent activities in connivance with the Bank Officials and Income tax Officials." 4. During proceedings before us, as regards to the issues raised in the grounds of appeal No. 1 to 4, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee argued that the Assessee company failed to understand the reasons recorded for reope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat case has been re- opened on the basis of information received from DDIT and there was no independent satisfaction or belief on the basis of material in hand for concluding as to how the income had escaped assessment. However, above contentions of the AR are not acceptable. As already discussed in asstt order and also in the report of the AO, inquires revealed that assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 62,50,000/- u/s 35(1) of the Act on the donation made to Indian Medical Scientific Research Foundation (IMSRF) which is engaged in giving bogus donation entries to the so called donors with the modus operandy that after receipt of donation from various private companies which claim deduction under Income Tax and after crediting such receip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....' reported in [2009] 311 ITR 38 (P&H) wherein, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has said that the Assessing Officer has to reopen the case u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of a 'reasons to believe' and not on 'reasons to suspect'. In our considered view, the ld. CIT(A) has clearly and categorically brought it on record that the Assessing Officer had a definite information that the Assessee was claiming deduction u/s 35(1) on the basis of donation made to Indian Medical Scientific & Research Foundation ('IMSRF') which was engaged in giving bogus donation entries to the so-called donors in order to claim deduction u/s 35(1) of the I.T. Act. In our view, the findings given by the ld. CIT( A) on this issue, is very clear and that it was a' ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsidered the submissions of the AR. As already stated assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 62.50 lacs u/s 35(1) of the Act. However, AO has disallowed the same on the ground that institution to whom the donation was made was not recognized by the CBDT. In fact AO has also submitted copy of a letter No. F. No. 225/153/2006- ITA-II dated 26-12-2006 of Section Officer, ITA-II, CBDT which shows that Indian Medical Scientific Research Foundation (IMSRF), Sanjay Place, Agra has not been notified u/s 35(1) of the I.T. Act. In view of above discussion and also for the reasons discussed in asstt order, disallowance of deduction of Rs. 62.50 lacs is upheld. Ground No. 4 is against charging interest under different provisions of Act. Charging of i....