TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 250
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal relates to confirming the disallowance of deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting Electronic and Mechanical items, PCBs, as per the specifications of foreign customers, contracting of IBMS and fire security systems, etc. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 06.10.2016, declaring income of Rs. 94,14,772/-. Initially, the return was processed under Section 143(1). Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (AO), during scrutiny assessment, on perusal of the profit and loss account, found that the assessee claimed dedu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uly complied along with the required details. It was submitted that the donation to Matrivani Institute of Experimental Research and Education, Kolkata, was paid through RTGS on 29.09.2015 through its bank account with State Bank of India. The assessee, along with its submission, also furnished a copy of the bank statement, copy of the approval of the institution to whom the assessee paid the donation, certificate of registration of the society issued by the Government of West Bengal, and a copy of the letter issued by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, recognising the institution from 28.01.2014 to 31.03.2017. The assessee contended that, on the basis of the genuine donation, the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y submitted that there is a delay of 34 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. The order passed by the learned CIT(A) was not communicated to the assessee immediately. The assessee realised about the passing of the assessment order in the first week of March 2025 and filed the appeal immediately. There is no intentional delay. The assessee has a good case on merits and is likely to succeed if his case is considered on merits. On merits, the learned AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has made a donation to a recognised institution. The donation was given through banking channels. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee furnished the required details by reply dated 22.02.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eather Cloth Manufacturing Co. Vs Indian Council of Agricultural Research (2000) 110 Taxman 511 (Bombay) 5. On the other hand, the learned Senior DR for the Revenue submits that the donation itself is in doubt. No details were furnished to the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. During the remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 133(6), which was not responded to by the institution to whom the assessee has paid such donation. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We find that a very short dispute is involved in the present appeal. We find that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as having valid approval. We find that the assessee made donation of Rs. 15.00 lacs to Matrivani Institute of Experimental Research and Education, Kolkata on 29th September 2025. Recognition was revoked only in the month of September 2016. There is no evidence that the donation given by the assessee was returned by way of cash. We find that, on a similar set of facts on disallowance of deduction of donation to Matrivani Institute of Experimental Research and Education the coordinate bench of the Mumbai Tribunal, in a recent decision in Chemstar International vs. DCIT (supra) has allowed the deduction under Section 35(1)(ii). It was held by the coordinate bench that there was no proof to show that the cheque paid by the assessee has been plo....