LA PAHRMA (GUJARAT) PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1432/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 October 2024AY 2013-14Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had bonafidely made the donation to a recognized institution eligible for exemption under Section 35(1)(ii). The donation was acknowledged before the institution's registration was cancelled, distinguishing it from prior rulings.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction for a donation made to Herbicure Health Care Bio Herbal Research Foundation. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment, alleging the donation was an accommodation entry. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was valid and if the donation claimed was genuine or an accommodation entry.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 35(1)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH

Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Ketan H. Shah &, Shri Aman Shah, A.Rs
For Respondent: Shri Veerabhadram V, Sr. D.R

आदेश/ORDER PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

1.

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 20-06- 2024 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal ADDL/JCIT(A) for assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The grounds of appeal

are as under:- “The Lower Authority has erred on facts as well as law.

1. In assuming jurisdiction U/s 148 of the Income Tax Act by issuing notice dated 25-03-2019 for the AY 2013-14, it is said that the whole proceeding is itself bad in law and void and the reason recorded is itself vague and cryptic and therefore, the reopening is liable to be quashed.

2. It is contended that the Appellant has given the donation in a genuine way and the assessing officer has mechanically accepted the investigation report without confronting the same along with statement of authorized person of Herbal Research Foundation and therefore, it is said that the addition made is required to be deleted.”

3. The assessee is a public limited company and engaged in the business of clinical research. The return of income was filed by the assessee on 29- 08-2013 declaring total income of Rs. 84,46,870/-. The said return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. An information was received from the DDIT Investigation that a survey was carried in the case of Herbicure Health Care Bio Herbal Research Foundation. During the survey, it was found that the said trust was providing accommodation entries to the beneficiaries. The DDIT Investigation Unit, Calcutta informed that the assessee was also filing deduction on such bogus donation during assessment year 2013-14. Accordingly, the reasons for reopening were recorded and after getting approval from authority, notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 25-03- 2019. The assessee filed return of income on 02-04-2019. In response to the same, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 02-05-2019. The assessee filed objection against the reopening of assessment letter dated 22- 05-2019. The same was disposed of vide order dated 31-10-2019. The assessee has filed the reply to the show notice dated 31-10-2019. After taking cognizance of the said reply, Assessing Officer held that the assessee could have filed benefit of donating source located in local station but has donated the same to this Herbicure Health Care Bio Herbal Research Foundation based in Calcutta and claimed the deduction. Thus, it is a bogus donation and made the additions to the extent of Rs. 8,75,000/-

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The ld. A.R. submitted that the said institution that Herbicure Health Care Bio Herbal Research Foundation and the donation to that institute has been decided by the Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of Chetan Sameshbhai Shah in A.Y. 20131-4 order dated 25-03-2019 and hence the assessee’s case is also squarely covered by the said decision.

6.

The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has submitted the details related to the said institute which clearly sets out that the said institute was recognized from 01-04-2012 up to 31-03-2015 as well as the said institute was having registration u/s. 12AA issued on 03-02-2005 and the donation given by the assessee was duly acknowledged by the said institute vide letter dated 22nd March, 2013 and in the Govt. Notification dated 04-03-2008 (Govt. of India Gazette Notification No. (S.O.798) 35/2008 dated 14-03-2008). The donations were notified as eligible for tax exemption as applicable u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, the assessee has bonafidely given a donation and it was not revenue’s case that the assessee received the said donation back and therefore the said donation cannot be held as accommodation entries provided to the beneficiaries. In fact, the decision of Tribunal in case of Chetan Sameshbhai Shah supra is also applicable in the assessee’s case wherein it is categorically mentioned if received the certificate, the donation was cancelled on 05-09-2016 but in assessee’s case, the assessee received the certificate on 22-03-2013. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28-10-2024 Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 28/10/2024 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →