BHIMANI CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income on 20.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs.4,47,910/-. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed that the assessee-company has given donation to Herbicure Healthcare Bio-Herbal Research Foundation, Calcutta. A survey action was carried out at the premises of the donee wherein it revealed to the Revenue that this concern was misusing the benefit of notification issued by the Income Tax Department. It has been getting donations from various sources, and after deducting certain amount of commission, these donations were refunded in cash. On the basis of that survey report registration granted to its favour was cancelled. On the basis of the outcome of that survey report, the Id.AO construed the donation given by the assessee as bogus. Appeal to the Id.CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 4. Before us, the Id.counsel for the assessee contended that donations were given on 25.3.2014. At that point of time, donee was notified as eligible institution and fall within the statutory eligibility criterion. Certificate for receiving donation was cancelled on 5.9.2016. There is no mechanism with the assessee to verify whether such donee was a genuine institute or not, which can avail donation from the society. 5. The Id. DR, on the other hand, contended that in the investigation it came to know about bogus affairs conducted by the donee. Hence, these donations are rightly been treated as bogus, and addition is rightly made. 6. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The AO is harping upon an information supplied by the survey tern of Calcutta. He has not specifically recorded statement of representatives of the donee. He has not brought on record a specific evidence wherein donee has deposed that donations received from the assessee was paid back in cash after deducting commission. On the basis of a general information collected from the donee, the donation made by the assessee cannot be doubted. Neither representatives of the donee have been put to cross-examination, nor any specific reply deposing that such donation was not received, or if received the same was repaid in cash, has been brought on record. In the absence of such circumstances, donation given by the assessee to the donee, on which the assessee no mechanism to check the veracity, can be doubted, more particularly, when certificate to obtain donation has been cancelled after two years of the payment of donation. It is fact which has been unearthed subsequent to the donations. Therefore, there cannot be any disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground. " 6. There is no disparity on the facts. On the basis same survey report, the genuineness of the donation has been doubted in the case of the assessee also. Therefore, the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the order of the ITAT in the case of S.G.Vat care P.Ltd., we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue. It is dismissed.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 7.1 As the issue decided by this tribunal in the case above, is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case, therefore we disagree with the finding of the authorities below. Accordingly we hold that the assessee is entitled for the benefit of the donation made to “SHG & PH” under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. 7.2 Regarding the donation made to the “NCT”, we note that the benefit of the deduction under section 35AC of the Act was denied to the assessee on the reasoning that the trustee of such trust in the statement given under section 133A during the survey operation has admitted the fact the NCT is engaged in the activity of providing the accommodating entries to the parties. However, admittedly there was no cross-examination provided to the assessee of the trustees who have admitted to be engaged in providing accommodating entries. Thus the question arises whether the assessee can be denied the benefit of the deduction under section 35AC of the Act on the basis of the statement recorded during survey operation which were not cross verified despite the request was made to the AO by the assessee. In our considered view the answer stands in favour of the assessee. The statement recorded during survey operation cannot be used against the assessee until and unless it is cross verified in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v/s Chartered Speed Pvt. Ltd. reported in Tax Appeal No. 126 of 2015 wherein it was held as under: “It is an undisputed position that the statement of the persons concerned which were recorded by the department, those persons were not made available for cross examination, may be for one reason or another inspite of the attempts made by the department. Therefore the Tribunal has rightly found that the statement of those persons cannot be read against the assessee.” 7.3 Furthermore, the revenue has not brought any tangible material suggesting that the donation paid by the assessee to “NCT” has come back to it in the form of cash. Thus in the absence of necessary documentary evidence, we are not inclined to confirm the order of the authorities below. 7.4 In view of the above, we set aside the finding of the learned CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 10. No distinguishing facts were pointed out by the Ld. DR at the time of hearing. The assessee has made the donation as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act and no defect was pointed out by the Assessing Officer or by the CIT(A) regarding the donation to Navjeevan Charitable Trust. In fact, the Revenue authorities could not establish that the said amount was returned back to the assessee from any of the records as well. Appeal being ITA No.2586/Ahd/2017 for Assessment Year 2010-11 filed by the assessee is thus allowed. 11. ITA Nos.2587 & 2588/Ahd/2017 for Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are identical and no distinguishing facts were pointed out by the Ld. DR, hence both these appeals as well are allowed.