Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”, BENCH
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM
आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):
These appeals in 1584/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 arise out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-59, Mumbai in appeal Nos.CIT(A)-59/IT-04(IT- 831/CIT(A)-30)/2017-18 dated 28/03/2018 & CIT(A)-59/IT-04(IT- 10857/CIT(A)-30)/2017-18 dated 28/02/2019 respectively (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 22/03/2016 & 15/12/2016 respectively by the ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – 19(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).
The first effective common issue to be decided in these appeals is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in upholding the disallowance made u/s 35(1)(ii) of the 1584/Mum/2019 M/s. Motilal Dahyubhai Jhaveri & Sons Act in the sum of Rs 26,25,000/- and Rs 21,00,000/- for the Asst Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively in the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts of Asst Year 2013-14 are taken up for adjudication and the decision rendered thereon would apply with equal force for Asst Year 2014-15 also in view of identical facts except with variance in figures.
The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs 26,25,000/- (being 175% of Rs 15,00,000/-) u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act for the scientific research organization donation made to School of Human Genetics & Population Health (SHGPH in short). Survey Operations u/s 133A of the Act were conducted on 27.1.2015 in the premises of SHGPH by the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata. In such survey, it was found that the said concern was engaged in collecting bogus donations u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act from beneficiaries to enable them to claim weighted deduction of 175% of the amounts actually paid by such beneficiaries. The ld AO issued a show cause notice asserting the fact that in the light of statements recorded during survey from certain office bearers of SHGPH and consequently why the deduction claimed u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act by the assessee should not be disallowed in the hands of the assessee.
The assessee in response to show cause notice replied that it is entitled for deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act and that the adverse inferences drawn based on the survey conducted in the premises of SHGPH would not bind the assessee as there was ablsutely no evidence brought on record to prove that the assessee had indeed received back the cash in lieu of donation cheques given to SHGPH, among various other objections. The assessee also pointed out that no where in the statements recorded from the office bearers of SHGPH, the name of the assessee had been mentioned by them. It was also specifically pleaded that the very same office bearers had also stated that for certain donations received by SHGPH, no repayments / refunds were made in cash in lieu of donation cheques received. The assessee on the contrary furnished the following documents in support of its claim :-
1584/Mum/2019 M/s. Motilal Dahyubhai Jhaveri & Sons a) Details of donation paid to SHGPH containing the date of donation, mode of payment by account payee cheque, cheque number, bank details thereon , amount paid and PAN of assessee . b) Money receipt issued by SHGPH for donation received from assessee. c) Bank statement of the assessee for the relevant period to prove that the assessee had sufficient funds in his bank account to give donation to SHGPH and that the said payment were made by account payee cheque and duly debited in the bank statement of the assessee. d) Notification issued by Ministry of Finance , Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT in short) dated January 2009 approving SHGPH u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act together with the terms and conditions for recognition of Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (SIROs). e) Appeal letter from SHGPH explaining their registration and approvals credentials and seeking donations from various organizations and persons. f) Copy of renewal of recognition of SHGPH as a Scientific Research Organistation (SIRO) by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research under the Scheme on Recognition of Scientific and Industrial Research Organisations (SIROs)-1988 dated 17.6.2010 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Science and Technology, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research , Technology Bhavan, New Delhi. g) Certificate of recognition issued by Government of West Bengal , Office of the Commissioner, for persons with disabilities dated 10.3.2010 in the name of SHGPH. h) Registration Certificate of SHGPH dated 26.4.1993 issued under West Bengal Societies Registration Act XXVI of 1961. i) Annual Report for the years ended 31.3.2012 and 31.3.2013 of SHGPH explaining their activities. j) List of members of Governing Body for the financial year 2012-13 together with the list of Advisory Committee members. k) Note on activities of SHGPH from the desk of Secretary of SHGPH together with necessary photographs as visual proof.
1584/Mum/2019 M/s. Motilal Dahyubhai Jhaveri & Sons l) Legal status of SHGPH containing various approvals obtained by SHGPH under Socieities Registration Act, Income Tax Act (Section 12A, 80G(5)(vi), 35(1)(ii), 10(23C) and TDS exemption ) , Ministry of Home Affairs (FCRA registration), DSIR recognition (SIRO), Commission for PWD (PWD) and International System Book No. (ISBN). m) Organisation chart explaining the various functions of the Governing Body and the activities carried out by SHGPH under Research & Development Unit, Charitable Uit and Virtual Institute separately. n) List of donors to SHGPH under Research & Development Unit wherein the name of the assessee herein was mentioned among other donors. o) Note on future plans of SHGPH . p) Article published in the leading newspaper ‘The Telegraph’ , Calcutta on 27.9.2012 about the activities carried out by SHGPH together with some photographs . q) Award titled as Bharat Vibhusan Samman Puraskar 2013 given by Government of India to SHGPH in the presence of various dignatories of the Government.
The ld AO relied on the survey report and observed that the assessee company’s name appear in the survey report amongst the list of names furnished by the DDIT (Inv.) Unit 4(1), Kolkata in the case of SGHPH reflecting bogus donation transaction of the assessee company. The ld AO then extracted the statements recorded by the DDIT, Investigation Wing, Kolkata from various persons belonging to SGHPH. The ld AO placed reliance on certain extracts of statements of Smt Moumita Raghavan, Smt Samadrita Mukherjee Sardar, Shri Pinaki Pal, Shri Arvind Tewari, Shri Shailesh Agarwal, Shri Akash Agarwal, Shri Avijit Sinha Roy and Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal for concluding that the assessee is not eligible for weighted deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act and accordingly disallowed a sum of Rs 26,25,000/- in the assessment. The action of the ld AO was upheld by the ld CITA. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeals before us for both the years.
1584/Mum/2019 M/s. Motilal Dahyubhai Jhaveri & Sons 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we find that the ld AR placed on record the copy of the Notification No. 4/2010 (F.No. 203/64/2009/ITA-II) dated 28.1.2010 issued by CBDT to SHGPH recognizing them u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act from Asst Year 2008- 09 onwards. The ld AR also placed on record a copy of the Notification issued by CBDT dated 15.9.2016 withdrawing the recognition of approval granted u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act to SHGPH with retrospective effect from 1.4.2007. Admittedly, the assessee had given donation to SHGPH on 6.3.2013 for Rs 15,00,000/- ( 175% of 15 lacs is Rs 26,25,000) and on 22.1.2014 for Rs 12,00,000/- (175% of 12 lacs is Rs 21,00,000/-), which are after the date of recognition of SHGPH u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act but before the date of withdrawal of the said approval by CBDT in the case of SHGPH. Now the short point that arises for our consideration is as to whether the assessee donor could be denied weighted deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act due to subsequent withdrawal of recognition by CBDT with retrospective effect. We find that the issue under dispute is already addressed by the co-ordinate bench of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs M/s Maco Corporation (India) Pvt Ltd in dated 14.3.2018 for Asst Year 2013-14 wherein it was held as under:-
8.1. The brief fact pertaining to SGHPH are as under:- a) SGHPH was recognized vide Gazette Notification dated 28.1.2009 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT in short), Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Government of India, u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act. b) SGHPH was also recognized as a scientific industrial research organization (SIRO) by Ministry of Science & Technology, Government of India. The renewal of recognition as SIRO by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research under the Scheme on Recognition of Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation , 1988 was made for the period from 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2013 vide communication in F.No. 14/473/2007-TU- V dated 17.6.2010. 8.2. At the outset, we find that the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2006 had introduced an Explanation in Section 35 of the Act which reads as under:- Section 35(1)(ii) – Explanation 1584/Mum/2019 M/s. Motilal Dahyubhai Jhaveri & Sons The deduction, to which the assessee is entitled in respect of any sum paid to a research association, university, college or other institution to which clause (ii) or clause (iii) applies, shall not be denied merely on the ground that, subsequent to the payment of such sum by the assessee, the approval granted to the association, university, college or other institution referred to in clause (ii) or clause (iii) has been withdrawn. Hence the aforesaid provisions of the Act are very clear that the payer (the assessee herein) would not get affected if the recognition granted to the payee had been withdrawn subsequent to the date of contribution by the assessee. Hence no disallowance u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act could be made in the instant case. 8.3. …………… 8.4. We also find that the co-ordinate bench of this tribunal in exactly similar facts had decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the following cases:- a) Rajda Polymers vs DCIT in for Asst Year 2013- 14 dated 8.11.2017. b) Saimed Innovation vs ITO in ITA No. 2231/Kol/2016 for Asst Year 2013-14 dated 13.9.2017. The findings of those decisions are not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. 8.5. In view of the aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the ld CITA had rightly deleted the disallowance u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act in the sum of Rs 3,06,25,000/- made by the ld AO. Accordingly, the Grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.
6.1. We find that the reliance placed by the ld AR on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Chotatingrai Tea reported in (2003) 126 Taxman 399 (SC) dated 29.10.2002 and State of Maharashtra vs Suresh Trading Company reported in (1998) 1998 taxmann.com 1747 (SC) dated 7.2.1996 are very well founded and are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case before us. The ratio decidendi of the said judgements are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. We also find that the ld AR had rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of National 1584/Mum/2019 M/s. Motilal Dahyubhai Jhaveri & Sons Leather Cloth Manufacturing Co. vs Indian Council of Agricultural Research reported in (2000) 110 Taxman 511 (Bom) dated 7.10.1999 in the context of withdrawal of deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act due to withdrawal of recognition with retrospective effect . In any case, we find that the provisions of section 35(1)(ii) of the Act vide its Explanation reproduced hereinabove clearly proves that the donor (i.e assessee herein) cannot be affected due to subsequent withdrawal of recognition with retrospective effect. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions and the provisions of the Act, we direct the ld AO to grant deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act in the sums of Rs 26,25,000/- and Rs 21,00,000/- for the Asst Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. In view of these findings, the other arguments advanced by the ld AR on merits are not adjudicated herein and are left open. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee for both the years are allowed.
The last common issue is charging of interest u/s 234B of the Act which is consequential in nature and does not require any specific adjudication.
The Ground No. 7 for Asst Year 2013-14 and Ground No. 8 for Asst Year 2014-15 raised by the assessee are general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication .
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 24/04 /2019 Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (M.BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 24/04/2019 Karuna Sr.PS 1584/Mum/2019 M/s. Motilal Dahyubhai Jhaveri & Sons Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT(A), Mumbai.