DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai V. Sudhakar Natarajan, Chennai

ITA 2205/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4566 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Set aside
• Section: 37(1)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !', $ '% BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2205/CHNY/2017 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. SHRI SUDHAKAR NATARAJAN, NO.67, NATARAJAN APARTMENT, 1 ST MAIN ROAD, SASTRI NAGAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI - 600 020. PAN : AAIPS 7784 H (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SRIDHAR DORA, JCIT ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 16.05.2019 23( . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.05.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -3, CHENNAI, D ATED 28.04.2017 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. SHRI SRIDHAR DORA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERA TION IS ASSESSMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSES SEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE 2 I.T.A. NO.2205/CHNY/17 ASSESSING OFFICER DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54EC OF T HE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTM ENTS SAID TO BE MADE IN REC BONDS ON 27.03.2014 AND ON 08.04.2014. ACCORDI NG TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE INVESTED 50,00,000/- ON 27.03.2014 AND ANOTHER SUM OF 50,00,000/- ON 08.04.2014. IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT MADE ON 27.03.2014, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT SAID TO BE MADE ON 08.04.2014, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT IT WAS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF SHARES, THE REFORE, NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISA LLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE SHARES WE RE, IN FACT, TRANSFERRED ON 30.09.2013. THE OTHER DIRECTOR ALSO CLAIMED SIM ILAR EXEMPTION ON THE TRANSFER OF SHARES OF M/S ORDAIN HEALTH CARE GLOBAL PVT. LTD. THE OTHER DIRECTOR CLAIMED THAT THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE ON 30 .09.2013. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE ON 08.10.2013. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ACCEPTED IN THE COMPUTAT ION STATEMENT THAT THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE ON 30.09.2013. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, T HE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THE DATE OF SALE OF SHARES WAS 30.09.2013, THEREFORE, NOW THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE A DIFFERENT STAND. 3 I.T.A. NO.2205/CHNY/17 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT NO DOUBT, AT PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER-BOO K IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE WRONGLY STATED THAT THE DAT E OF TRANSFER WAS 30.09.2013. THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF LETTER DATED 26 .12.2016, A COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 33 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, CL ARIFIED THAT WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE INADVERTENTLY ME NTIONED THE DATE OF SALE AS 30.09.2013. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ACTUAL DATE OF TRANSFER OF SHARES IS 18.10.2013. THE LD.COUNSEL I NVITED OUT ATTENTION TO PAGE 73 OF THE PAPER-BOOK WHERE A COPY OF SHARE TRA NSFER FORM IN FORM 7B IS AVAILABLE, AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DATE OF TRA NSFER IS REFERRED AS 8 TH OCTOBER, 2013. THE LD.COUNSEL HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 75 OF PAPER-BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSFER OF SH ARES, IN FACT, EFFECTED ON 31.10.2013. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH WHETHER A NY RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE COMPANY FOR TRANSFER OF SHARES, THE L D.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT HE COULD NOT CLARIFY IMMEDIATELY. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY TRANSFERRED THE SHARES OF M/S ORDIAN HEA LTH CARE GLOBAL PVT. LTD. A SUM OF 50,00,000/- WAS INVESTED ON 27.03.2014 IN REC BONDS , WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE AS SESSEE CLAIMS THAT ANOTHER SUM OF 50,00,000/- WAS INVESTED ON 08.04.2014. THIS WAS 4 I.T.A. NO.2205/CHNY/17 DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND T HAT THE TRANSFER OF SHARES TOOK PLACE ON 30.09.2013. THEREFORE, THE IN VESTMENT MADE ON 08.04.2014 WAS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. 5. THE ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS T RIBUNAL IS THE DATE OF ACTUAL TRANSFER OF SHARES. COPY OF SHARE TRANSF ER APPLICATION, WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 73 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, WAS DATED 8 TH OCTOBER, 2013. THE SHARE TRANSFER FORM IN FORM 7B IS NOT COMPLETEL Y FILLED UP. THE ATTESTATION COLUMN IS LEFT BLANK. MOREOVER, THE OC CUPATION AND ADDRESS COLUMNS WERE ALSO LEFT BLANK. IN THE COMPUTATION O F STATEMENT, WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 5, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY MENTIO NED THE DATE OF TRANSFER AS 30.09.2013. MOREOVER, FOR TRANSFER OF SHARES, A RESOLUTION BY THE COMPANYS BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS ESSENTIAL. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CLARIFY IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WHEN THE RESOLUTION WAS PASSED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL SITUATION, TH IS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-E XAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE TH E ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5 I.T.A. NO.2205/CHNY/17 6. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISAL LOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 35(1)(II) OF TH E ACT. 7. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 27 OF INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963. THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED WEIGHTED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 3 5(1)(II) OF THE ACT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE DONA TION MADE TO SHRI ARVINDO INSTITUTE OF APPLIED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH TR UST. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE WAS MISREPRESENTED BY THE TRUST SAYING THAT THE APPROVAL GRANTED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35 (1)(II) OF THE ACT WAS RENEWED. A FORGED GAZETTE NOTIFICATION WAS ALSO SA ID TO BE OBTAINED BY THE TRUST. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSES SING OFFICER SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND THAT THE TRUST WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AS SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION UNDER SECTION 35(1)(II) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE SAID TRUST WAS NOT DOING ANY RESEARCH ACTIVITY IN THE FIELD OF MEDICAL SCIENCE. THE LD.COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAD NOT CONTROVERTED THAT THE TRUST WAS NOT APPROVED UNDER SECTION 35(1)(II) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOUND TH AT GENUINENESS OF PAYMENT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED ON THE BASIS OF THE ST ATEMENT RECORDED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE. EVEN, IN CAS E, THE TRUST TO WHOM 6 I.T.A. NO.2205/CHNY/17 THE DONATION WAS MADE WAS NOT AN APPROVED TRUST, ST ILL ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 37( 1) OF THE ACT AS BUSINESS LOSS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE A SSESSEE IS A SCIENCE GRADUATE AND OPERATING IN THE FIELD OF MEDICAL SCIE NCES / PHARMACEUTICALS FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS IN DIFFERENT CAPACITIES INCLU DING RESEARCH / CONSULTANT, ETC. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE D ONATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS RELATED TO HIS BUSINESS ACTIVITY, THERE FORE, EVEN THOUGH THE TRUST WAS NOT APPROVED OR RENEWED, IT HAS TO BE ALL OWED UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT WHILE COMPUTING THE TAXABLE INCOME . THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI SRIDHAR DORA, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE RECIPIENT TRUST IS NOT DOING ANY RESEARCH ACTIVITY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO FOUND ON ENQUIRY THAT NO SUCH TRUST WAS FUNCTIONING IN THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO THE CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 14 TH DECEMBER, 2018, THE LD. D.R. FOUND THAT SHRI ARVINDO INSTITUTE OF APPLIED SCIENT IFIC RESEARCH TRUST WAS APPROVED TILL 31.03.2006. THEREAFTER THE SAID TRUS T WAS NOT RECOGNIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 35(1)(II) OF THE ACT. A CCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., A FORGED GAZETTE NOTIFICATION IS ALSO AVAILABLE AT THE PAPER-BOOK FILED BY 7 I.T.A. NO.2205/CHNY/17 THE ASSESSEE. THIS FORGED GAZETTE NOTIFICATION, AC CORDING TO THE LD. D.R., WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHATEVER IT MAY BE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35 (1)(II) OF THE ACT, BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND TRUST PLACED THEIR RELIANCE ON THE FORGED DOCUMENT, HENCE, THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ALLOWED T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CIT(APPEALS) PROCEEDED ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE CBDT APPROVAL WAS EXTENDED UPTO 31 ST MARCH, 2019. IN FACT, THE CBDT CLARIFIED BY NOTIF ICATION DATED 14 TH DECEMBER, 2018 THAT THE APPROVAL WAS NOT EXTENDED BEYOND 31.03.2006. IT IS NOT KNOWN FROM WHERE THE CIT(APP EALS) FOUND THAT THE CBDTS APPROVAL WAS EXTENDED UPTO 31 ST MARCH, 2019. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHRI ARVINDO INSTITUTE OF APPLIED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH TRUST WAS RECOGNIZED BEYOND 31.03.2006. T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT ON THE BASIS OF FORGED DOCUMENT, THE TR UST MISREPRESENTED, THEREFORE, NOW MAKING AN ALTERNATIVE CLAIM BY MAKIN G APPLICATION UNDER RULE 27 OF INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1 963. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE CIRCULAR OF THE CBDT DATED 14.12.2018. FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONVENIENCE, WE ARE REPRODUCING THE SAME AS FOLLOWS:- 8 I.T.A. NO.2205/CHNY/17 F.NO. 225/351/2018-ITA ( II) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES **** ROOM N0. 245A, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI, THE 14TH DECEMBER, 2018 TO ALL PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX ALL DIRECTOR GENERALS OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) SIR/MADAM SUBJECT: INFORMATION REGARDING BOGUS DONATION RACKE T UNDER SECTION 35(1)(II) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961-REG.- KINDLY REFER TO THE SUBJECT MENTIONED ABOVE. 2. IN THIS CONNECTION, I AM DIRECTED TO STATE THAT S ECTION 35(1)(II) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 (ACT) PRESCRIBES A WEIGHTED DEDUCTION @ 150% (175% BEFORE 01.04.2018) TO A DONOR FOR ANY SUM PAID TO AN APPROVED RESEARCH ASSOCIATION HAVING AS ITS SOLE O BJECT THE UNDERTAKING OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH OR TO A UNIVERS ITY, COLLEGE OR OTHER INSTITUTION FOR CARRYING OUT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. VERY RECENTLY, BOARD HAS RECEIVED SEVERAL REFERENCES FROM THE FIELD AUTH ORITIES FOR CLARIFYING WHETHER A TRUST NAMELY M/S SHRI ARVINDO INSTITUTE OF APPLIED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH TRUST (PAN:AAFTS7349D) (HEREINAFTER THE TRUST) HAVING OFFICES AT MUMBAI & PUDUCHERRY IS AN ENTITY SPECIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THROU GH A NOTIFICATION FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 35(L)(II} OF THE ACT OR NOT. PRESENTLY, THE TRUST IS ASSESSED WITH CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI. 3. IN THIS REGARD, UPON PERUSAL OF RECORDS,IT EMERGE S THAT THE ABOVE TRUST WAS EARLIER APPROVED UNDER SECTION 35(1}(II} OF THE ACT WHICH EXPIRED ON 31.03.2006. THEREAFTER ,THIS ENTITY, BEING NOT RECOGNIZED FOR PURPOSE OF SECTION 35(1)(II) OF THE ACT, IS NOT E LIGIBLE TO RAISE DONATIONS FOR UNDERTAKING SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH HOWEV ER, THE TRUST HAS 9 I.T.A. NO.2205/CHNY/17 RAISED SUBSTANTIAL DONATIONS OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS ON THE BASIS OF A FORGED CERTIFICATE WHILE THE DONORS HAVE IRREGULARL Y CLAIMED WEIGHTED DEDUCTION U/S. 35(1)(II) OF THE ACT ON DONATIONS MADE TO THE TRUST. 4. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, I AM DIRECTED TO STATE THAT THE PENDING SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT CASES OF DONORS WHO HAVE CLAIMED IRREGUL AR WEIGHTED DEDUCTION U/S 35(1)(II) SHOULD BE HANDLED IN LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTS. IN CASE OF DONORS WHOSE CASES ARE PRESENTLY NOT UNDER SCRUTINY,THE BOARD DESIRES THAT A LIST OF DONORS WHO HAD PROVIDED FUNDS TO THE TRUST U/S 35(1}(II) OF THE ACT SHOULD BE DRAWN BY CIT (EXEMPTION}, MUMBAI FOR THE PERIOD FROM A.Y 2012-13 TO 2018-19 AND CIR CULATED TO THE CONCERNED FIELD AUTHORITIES EXPEDITIOUSLY. 5. I AM FURTHER DIRECTED TO STATE THAT WHILE HANDLIN G INVESTIGATIONS/ ENQUIRIES IN THESE CASES, THE CONCERNED ASSESSING O FFICER SHOULD EXAMINE THE SPECIFIC TRANSACTIONS RELATED TO THE SUM DONATED AND CASH TRAIL SHOULD BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED. ALSO, VARI OUS PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO ENQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION UNDER THE A CT SHOULD BE EFFECTIVELY USED AND ASSESSMENT ORDERS SHOULD BE PA SSED UNDER THE MONITORING OF SUPERVISORY AUTHORITIES. 6. THIS ISSUES WITH APPROVAL OF MEMBER (IT&C), CBDT. YOURS FAITHFULLY , (RAJARAJESWARI R.) UNDER SECRETARY (ITA.II) 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT SHRI A RVINDO INSTITUTE OF APPLIED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH TRUST WAS NOT RECOGNIZE D BEYOND 31.03.2006. FORGED DOCUMENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES TO MISREPRESENT AS IF THE SAID TRUST WAS RECOGNIZED BE YOND 31.03.2006. MOREOVER, IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RECOGNITION WAS EXTENDED BEYOND 31.03.2006. THEREFORE, THE CIT(APP EALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UND ER SECTION 35(1)(II) OF 10 I.T.A. NO.2205/CHNY/17 THE ACT. WHEN THE TRUST WAS NOT RENEWED BEYOND 31. 03.2006, IT IS NOT KNOWN WHAT MADE THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE DONATION. 12. THE ASSESSEE NOW CLAIMS THAT HE IS A SCIENCE GR ADUATE CONNECTED WITH PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND CONSULTA NCY, THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS LOSS / EXPENDITURE UN DER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF T HE ACT ALSO. THE PAYMENT WAS ADMITTEDLY SAID TO BE MADE AS DONATION FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND NOT FOR ANY BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. WHE N THE APPROVAL WAS NOT AVAILABLE ON THE DATE OF PAYMENT AND ADMITTEDLY FORGED DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO C LAIM THAT SHRI ARVINDO INSTITUTE OF APPLIED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH TRUST WAS APPROVED UNDER SECTION 35(1)(II) OF THE ACT, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF T HE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS KIND OF CLAIM CANNOT BE APPRECIATED. ONCE THE RECOGNITION WAS NOT GRANTED AND THE CLAIM WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF FORG ED AND FALSE DOCUMENT, INCLUDING ONE OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION, TH IS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE IT IS NOT A BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND THE CLAIM IS ONE OF DONATION, IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED UNDE R SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT ALSO. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO UP HOLD THE ORDER OF THE 11 I.T.A. NO.2205/CHNY/17 CIT(APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(AP PEALS) IS SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RESTORED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 24 TH MAY, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !') ( . . . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 24 TH MAY, 2019. KRI. . ,167 87(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+/ APPELLANT 2. ,-*+/ RESPONDENT 3. 0 91 () /CIT(A)-3, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-5, CHENNAI 5. 7: ,1 /DR 6. ;' < /GF.