DEVAJYOTI N. BHATTACHARYA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- 17 (1), MUMBAI

The Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee (AR), at the outset, submitted that similar issue arose in assessee’s own case for AYs 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2014-15 before this Tribunal Vide common order dated 30/09/2019 wherein similar deduction claimed by the assessee has been allowed, finding merits in the factual matrix. The copy of the order has been placed on record. The Ld. DR submitted that the donations were not genuine and therefore, the deduction has rightly been disallowed to the assessee.

Briefly stated, the assessee was assessed u/s 143(3) on 19/02/2016 wherein deduction of Rs.15 Lacs as claimed by the assessee u/s 35AC was denied in view of the fact that the assessee had made contribution of Rs.15 Lacs to one Navjivan Charitable Trust. However, the said trust was subjected to search action u/s 132 on 27/10/2014 wherein it transpired that all the expenses of the said trust were bogus and donations received in cheques were returned in cash to all the donors after deduction of nominal commission. The assessee defended the same by submitting that the donations were given through 3 Assessment Year :2013-14 Devajyoti N. Bhattacharya banking channels on the basis of documents produced by the trustee before the assessee. As per these documents, the trust was duly registered u/s 12A, holding a valid PAN and also registered under FCRA, 1976. Believing the same, the donations were given in good faith which were duly supported by the receipts issued by the trust to the assessee. Therefore, the claim of deduction u/s 35AC was valid claim. However, not convinced, the said deduction was denied to the assessee. The same upon confirmation by learned first appellate authority, is under challenge before us.

Upon due consideration, we find that the assessee was denied aforesaid deduction, in more or less similar factual matrix, in AYs 2009- 10, 2012-13 & 2014-15 which was agitated before this Tribunal vide common order dated 30/09/2019. The coordinate bench, vide para-7, held that that the assessee had adduced evidence to establish that payment of donation to Navjivan Charitable Trust and the onus had shifted to Ld.AO. However, Ld. AO failed to conduct any inquiry before making disallowance and did not brought on record any fact to establish that donation given by the assessee was subsequently returned back in cash except mere allegations. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s A and A Bakery P. Ltd. (2008 302 ITR 51) to support the conclusions. Finally, the disallowance was deleted. We find that fact to be pari-materia the same in this year. The assessee has duly discharged the onus casted upon him and it was incumbent upon Ld. AO to refute the same. However, no such inquiry has been conducted and the disallowance has been made on mere