Pradip Tondon, Kolkata V. ACIT, Cir.-62, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 2315/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5188 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAYANTA KHANRA
• Assessee Lawyers: M D SHAH
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Accommodation entries; Cancellation of registration
• Section: 133(6); 12A; 12AA; 12

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 2315/KOL/2019 SHRI PRADIP TONDON, AY- 2013- 14 , A(SMC) , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A(SMC) BENCH : KOLKATA ( ) . . , ) [BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM] ITA NO.2315/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SHRI PRADIP TONDON (PAN: ABJPT8149H) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-62, KOLKATA. APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 20.01.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.02.2020 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI M. D. SHAH, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI JAYANTA KHANRA, JCIT, SR. D R ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-19, KOLKATA DATED 13-09-2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE MAIN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR CONS IDERATION IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCT ION CLAIMED U/S. 80GGA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E ACT) OF RS. 5,00,000/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE DONATION GIVEN TO M/S. HERBICURE HEALTH CA RE BIO HERBAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION (IN SHORT M/S. HHCBHRF) REGISTRATION GRANTED U/S. 35(1) (II) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI M. D. SHAH CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA SINCE THE T RIBUNAL HAS BEEN ALLOWING CONSISTENTLY THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER HAVING GIVE N THE DONATION TO M/S. HHCBHRF WHICH HAD ENJOYED REGISTRATION U/S. 35(1)(II) OF TH E ACT. ACCORDING TO LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE IS A SALARIED PERSON, THEREFORE, IN CASE SUCH A PERSON GIVES DONATION TO AN ENTITY WHICH ENJOYED REGISTRATION U/S. 35(1)(II) OF THE A CT THEN THAT PERSON WOULD GET 100% DEDUCTION U/S. 80GGA OF THE ACT AND IN CASE A BUSIN ESSMAN/ENTITY GIVES THE DONATION THEN THEY WOULD GET WEIGHTED DEDUCTION OF 175%. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF INDIAN COAL AGENCY VS. ACIT, ITA NOS. 464 & 2 ITA NO. 2315/KOL/2019 SHRI PRADIP TONDON, AY- 2013- 14 465/KOL/2018 FOR AYS 2013-14 AND 2014-15 DATED 23.1 0.2019 AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. M/S. MACO CORPORAT ION (INDIA) PVT. LTD., ITA NO. 16/KOL/2017 FOR AY 2013-14 DATED 14.03.2018 AND CON TENDED THAT SINCE THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN SIMILAR CASE S, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR OPPOSING THE APPEAL SUBMITTED THAT IN CASES OF THIS NATURE WHEREIN THE DONEE WAS M/S. SCHOOL OF HUMAN GENETICS WHICH ENTITY ALSO ENJOYED SECTION 35(1)(II) REGISTRATION WAS FOUND BY THE DEP ARTMENT TO BE INVOLVED IN NEFARIOUS ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO DONO RS LIKE ASSESSEE AND WHEN THE ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THEIR ASSESSING OFFICERS THEN THEY (DONEES) CHANGED TACTICS AND RETRACTED THEIR ADMISSION/CONFE SSION, WHICH THEY EARLIER MADE TO THE DEPARTMENT, WHICH RESULTED IN THIS TRIBUNAL GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER IN THE CASE OF THE DONEE, [ M/S. SCHOOL OF HUMAN GENETICS ] THEY LATER ON APPROACHED THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WHEREIN AGAIN THEY REITERATED AND ADMITTED THAT THEY WERE PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN LIEU OF COMMISSION TO DONO RS LIKE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER, THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAD ACCEPTED ONLY THEIR COMM ISSION INCOME. SO, ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, SINCE THE DEPARTMENT IS IN THE PROCESS OF C OLLECTING EVIDENCES/THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION VIZ., STATEMENT FILED BY THE SCHOOL OF HUMAN GENETICS ETC. TO BRING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL THAT THE DONATION GIVEN BY PER SONS LIKE ASSESSEE ARE BOGUS IN NATURE AND DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE GIVEN DEDUCTION AS PRAYE D FOR BY THEM. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED THAT THIS APPEAL MAY BE ADJOURNED SO THAT IT CAN AWAIT T HE DECISION IN OTHER CASES INVOLVING DONEE M/S. SCHOOL OF HUMAN GENETICS . 4. IN HIS REJOINDER TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. DR, MR. M. D. SHAH FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE DONEE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS M/S. HHCBHRF WHICH ENTITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH M/S. SCHOOL OF HUMAN GENETIC S. ACCORDING TO LD. COUNSEL, THE PRESENT DONEE M/S. HHCBHRF HAS NOT GONE TO THE SETT LEMENT COMMISSION AND HAS NOT MADE ANY ASSERTIONS AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR AND THERE IS NO SHRED OF EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL TO OVERTURN THE RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE COORDINATE B ENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE WHEREIN THE DONEE IS M/S. HHCBHRF. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO LD. AR, THE QUESTION FOR AWAITING THE DECISION IN THE CASE INVOLVING M/S. SCHOOL OF HUMA N GENETICS DOES NOT ARISE AND, THEREFORE, HE WANTED US TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE INVOLVED. I N OTE THAT TO THIS FACTUAL ASSERTION MADE BY THE LD. AR, LD. DR FOR THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT CON TROVERT THAT M/S. HHCBHRF HAD 3 ITA NO. 2315/KOL/2019 SHRI PRADIP TONDON, AY- 2013- 14 APPROACHED THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND OFFERED SE TTLEMENT AS IN THE CASE INVOLVING M/S. SCHOOL OF HUMAN GENETICS. 5. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND AFTER PERUSING T HE RECORDS, IT IS NOTED THAT THE MAIN OBJECTION OF THE LD. DR THAT SIMILAR DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED BY DONORS/ASSESSEES WHO HAD GIVEN DONATION TO ANOTHER ENTITY WHICH ENJOYED REGI STRATION U/S. 35(1)(II) OF THE ACT I.E, M/S. SCHOOL OF HUMAN GENETICS [DONEE]HAD APPROCHED THE S ETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND ACCEPTED BEFORE IT THAT IT HAD BEEN ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACC OMMODATION ENTRIES IN LIEU OF COMMISSION AND, THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE ADJUDICATED AND ADJOURNMENT SOUGHT SHOULD BE GRANTED. HOWEVER, AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, I NOTE THAT M/S. SCHOOL OF GENETICS HAD GONE BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, (OT HER ALLEGATION LIKE THEY ACCEPTED BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION THAT THEY WERE INV OLVED IN FACILITATING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES ETC. AND THAT DEPARTMENT WAS IN THE PROCESS OF COLLECTING MATERIALS FROM SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ETC. ARE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY DR BEFORE M E BUT NO EVIDENCE/MATERIAL TILL DATE HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE ME, AND, THEREFORE, THE CA SES INVOLVING M/S. SCHOOL OF GENETICS (DONEES) HAVE BEEN GIVEN ADJOURNMENT) AND NOT THE D ONEE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE WHICH IS M/S. HHCBHRF , WHICH ENTITY HAS NOT GONE T O THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION OR HAS NOT MADE ANY ASSERTIONS (I.E. TRUE AND CORRECT DISC LOSURE) BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. IN SUCH A SCENARIO, THE OBJECTION OF THE LD. DR TO ADJ OURN THE APPEAL CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND I PROCEED TO HEAR THE APPEAL ON MERITS. AFTER HEARIN G BOTH THE PARTIES, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, A SALARIED PERSON HAS GIVEN A DONATION OF RS. 5 LAKHS TO M/S. HHCBHRF WHICH ENJOYED REGISTRATION U/S. 35(1)(II) OF THE ACT AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80GGA OF THE ACT I.E. 100% DEDUCTION FOR THE AMOUNT DONATED. BASED ON SURVEY STATEMENTS AND THE FACT THAT THE LD. CIT(E) HAS WITHDRAWN THE RECOGNITION RETROS PECTIVELY THE AO/LD. CIT(A) HAS DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. H OWEVER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA AND THE TRIBUNAL WAS PLEASED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN SIMILAR CASES. SO, SINCE THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS AND I N LAW AND TAKING NOTE THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS FOR AY 2013-14, IT IS NOTED THAT THIS TRIBU NAL IN THE CASE OF INDIAN COAL AGENCY (SUPRA) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR DONAT ION GIVFEN TO M/S. HHCBHRF BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUG H THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXEMPT ION U/S. 35(1)(II) OF THE ACT FOR MAKING DONATION OF RS.1,55,00,000/- TO M/S. HERBICURE HEAL THCARE BIO-HERBAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION 4 ITA NO. 2315/KOL/2019 SHRI PRADIP TONDON, AY- 2013- 14 WHICH ENJOYED REGISTRATION U/S. 35(1)(II) OF THE AC T GRANTED ON 14.03.2008 AND RENEWED VIDE DATED 13.08.2012 WHICH FACT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED. THE ONLY GROUND ON WHICH THE AO HAS DENIED THE CLAIM OF WEIGHTED DEDUCTION WAS THAT IT HAS COME TO HIS KNOWLEDGE THAT THE FOUNDER OF M/S. HHBHRF HAS ADMITTED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT THAT IT WAS INDULGING IN THE NEFARIOUS PRACTICE OF GIVING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY TO THE ENTITIES LIKE ASSESSEE AND A WHISTLE- BLOWER HAS ALSO SUPPORTED THIS ALLEGATION. HOWEVER, WHEN THE AO IS SUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) TO M/S. HHBHRF, IT DID NOT SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION OF AO AND ON THE OTH ER HAND, CORROBORATED THE FACT OF ASSESSEE GIVING DONATION OF RS.2,71,25,000/- TO IT. AND IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE FOUNDER OF M/S. HHBHRF HAS RETRACTED THE ALLEGATION MADE EARLI ER. AND THE ASSESSEE PLEADED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT EVEN IF THE CERTIFICATE GRANTED U/S . 35(1)(II) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN RETROSPECTIVELY, THAT CANNOT BE A GROUND TO DISALLO W THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTE THAT THIS ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA. IT IS NOT IN DISPU TE THAT M/S. HHBHRF WAS ENJOYING THE APPROVAL UNDER SEC. 35(1)(II) OF THE ACT AS ON THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF DONATION AND BY RETROSPECTIVE CANCELLATION OF APPROVAL OF THE CONCERNED INSTITUTI ON, THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF THE DONATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED. T HIS VIEW OF OURS HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN M/S SEKSARIA BISWAN SU GAR FACTORY LTD. AND ANOTHER VS. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS (1990) 184 ITR 123 AND WE NOTE THAT THIS VIEW HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY TAKEN WHEN APPLICATION OF WEIGHTE D DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED AGAINST M/S. HHBHRF. MOREOVER, OUR VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE EXP LANATION GIVEN U/S. 35(1)(II) OF THE ACT IS REPRODUCED UNDER: SECTION 35(1)(II) - EXPLANATION. THE DEDUCTION, TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED IN RESPECT OF ANY SUM PAID TO A RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OR OTHER INSTITUTI ON TO WHICH CLAUSE (II) OR CLAUSE (III) APPLIES, SHALL NOT BE DENIED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT, SUBS EQUENT TO THE PAYMENT OF SUCH SUM BY THE ASSESSEE, THE APPROVAL GRANTED TO THE ASSOCIATION, UNIVERSIT Y, COLLEGE OR OTHER INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (II) OR CLAUSE (III) HAS BEEN WITHDRAW N . 7. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION IN SECTION 3 5(1)(II) OF THE ACT TO WITHDRAW THE RECOGNITION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE THEREIN. WHE N THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION IN THE ACT, THE ACTION OF THE REVENUE I N WITHDRAWING THE RECOGNITION WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.2007 IS UNWARRANTED. IN THIS REGA RD, THE RECENT DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVE LOPMENT CORPORATION (GWALIOR) M.P. LTD VS CIT GWALIOR REPORTED IN (2018) 90 TAXMANN.COM 281 ( SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT :- 21. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE CIT HAD NO EXPRESS POWER OF CANCELLATION OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ONCE GRANTED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE UND ER SECTION 12A TILL 01.10.2004. IT IS FOR THE REASONS THAT, FIRST, THERE WAS NO EXPRESS PROVISION IN THE ACT VESTING THE CIT WITH THE POWER TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE GRANTED UNDER S ECTION 12A OF THE ACT. SECOND, THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 12A BY THE CIT IS A QUASI JUDICIAL OR DER AND BEING QUASI JUDICIAL IN NATURE, IT COULD BE WITHDRAWN/RECALLED BY THE CIT ONLY WHEN THERE WA S EXPRESS POWER VESTED IN HIM UNDER THE ACT TO DO SO. IN THIS CASE THERE WAS NO SUCH EXPRESS PO WER. 22. INDEED, THE FUNCTIONS EXERCISABLE BY THE CIT UNDER SECTION 12A ARE NEITHER LEGISLATIVE AND NOR EXECUTIVE BUT AS MENTIONED ABOVE THEY ARE ESSENTIAL LY QUASI JUDICIAL IN NATURE. 23. THIRD, AN ORDER OF THE CIT PASSED UNDER SECTION 12 A DOES NOT FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF 'ORDERS' MENTIONED IN SECTION 21 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT. THE EXPRESSION 'ORDER' EMPLOYED IN SECTION 21 WOULD SHOW THAT SUCH 'ORDER' MUST BE IN THE NATU RE OF A 'NOTIFICATION', 'RULES' AND 'BYE LAWS' ETC. (SEE - INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS(I) V. INSTITUT E OF SOCIAL WELFARE [2002] 5 SCC 685. 24. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ORDER, WHICH CAN BE MODIFIED O R RESCINDED BY APPLYING SECTION 21, HAS TO BE EITHER EXECUTIVE OR LEGISLATIVE IN NATURE WHEREA S THE ORDER, WHICH THE CIT IS REQUIRED TO PASS UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT, IS NEITHER LEGISLATIV E NOR AN EXECUTIVE ORDER BUT IT IS A 'QUASI JUDICIAL ORDER'. IT IS FOR THIS REASON, SECTION 21 HAS NO APPLICATION IN THIS CASE. 25. THE GENERAL POWER, UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, TO RESCIND A NOTIFICATION OR ORDER HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBJ ECT MATTER, CONTEXT AND THE EFFECT OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE NOTIFICAT ION OR ORDER IS ISSUED AND THE POWER IS NOT 5 ITA NO. 2315/KOL/2019 SHRI PRADIP TONDON, AY- 2013- 14 AVAILABLE AFTER AN ENFORCEABLE RIGHT HAS ACCRUED UN DER THE NOTIFICATION OR ORDER. MOREOVER, SECTION 21 HAS NO APPLICATION TO VARY OR AMEND OR R EVIEW A QUASI JUDICIAL ORDER. A QUASI JUDICIAL ORDER CAN BE GENERALLY VARIED OR REVIEWED WHEN OBTA INED BY FRAUD OR WHEN SUCH POWER IS CONFERRED BY THE ACT OR RULES UNDER WHICH IT IS MAD E. (SEE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES, NINTH EDITION BY G.P. SINGH PAGE 893). 26. 27. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT AN EXPRESS POWER WAS CON FERRED ON THE CIT TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION FOR THE FIRST TIME BY ENACTING SUB-SECTION (3) IN S ECTION 12AA ONLY WITH EFFECT FROM 01.10.2004 BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT 2004 (23 OF 2004) AND HENCE SUCH POWER COULD BE EXERCISED BY THE CIT ONLY ON AND AFTER 01.10.2004, I.E., (ASSESSMENT YEA R 2004-2005) BECAUSE THE AMENDMENT IN QUESTION WAS NOT RETROSPECTIVE BUT WAS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. 28. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL HAD ALSO COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THREE HIGH COURTS, NAMELY, DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT (EXEMPTIONS) V. MOOL CHAND KHAIRATI RAM TRUST [2011] 11 TAXMANN.COM 42/199 TAXMAN 1/339 ITR 622 , UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF WELHAM BOYS' SCHOOL SOCIETY V. CBDT [2006] 285 ITR 74/[2007] 158 TAXMAN 199 AND ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OXFORD ACADEMY FOR CAREER DEVELOPMENT V. CHIEF CIT [2009] 315 ITR 382 . 29. ALL THE THREE HIGH COURTS AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSU E, IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBJECT OF SECTION 12A OF THE ACT AND SECTION 21 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT H ELD THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT PASSED UNDER SECTION 12A IS QUASI JUDICIAL IN NATURE. SECOND, TH ERE WAS NO EXPRESS PROVISION IN THE ACT VESTING THE CIT WITH POWER OF CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION TILL 01.10.2004; AND LASTLY, SECTION 21OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT UNDER SECTION 12A BECAUSE THE ORDER IS QUASI JUDICIAL IN NATURE AND I T IS FOR ALL THESE REASONS THE CIT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ONCE GRANTED BY HIM UNDER SECTION 12A TILL THE POWER WAS EXPRESSLY CONFERRED ON THE CIT BY SECTION 12AA(3) OF THE ACT W.E.F. 01.10.2004. 8. WE HOLD THAT THE RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE AFORESAI D JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT WOULD SQUARELY BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE I NSTANT CASE. INFACT THE ASSESSEES CASE HEREIN FALLS ON A MUCH BETTER FOOTING THAN THE FACTS BEFOR E THE HONBLE APEX COURT. IN THE CASE BEFORE HONBLE APEX COURT, THE POWER OF CANCELLATION OF RE GISTRATION US 12A OF THE ACT WAS CONFERRED BY THE ACT ON THE LD CIT W.E.F. 1.10.2004 AND THE HON BLE APEX COURT HELD THAT PRIOR TO THAT DATE , NO CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION COULD HAPPEN. BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROVISION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION U/S 35(1)(I I) OF THE ACT . HENCE, WE HOLD THAT THE WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION U/S 35(1)(II) OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE PAYEE ORGANIZATIONS WOULD NOT AFFECT THE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF THE ASSESSEE HEREIN FOR CLAIM OF WEIGHTED DEDUCTION U/S 35(1)(II) OF THE ACT. 9. 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 ITA NO. 333/KOL/2017 F OR ASST YEAR 2013-14 DATED 8.11.2017. B) SAIMED INNOVATION VS ITO IN ITA NO. 2231/KOL/201 6 FOR ASST YEAR 2013-14 DATED 13.9.2017. C)DCIT VS. M/S. MACO CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 16/KOL/2017 FOR AY 2013-14 DATED 14.03.2018. D) DCIT VS. M/S. DESMET REAGENT PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO . 15/KOL/2017 FOR AY 2013-14 DATED 10.10.2018 THE FINDINGS OF THOSE DECISIONS ARE NOT REITERATED HEREIN FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 10. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FINDINGS IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDE NTS RELIED UPON HEREINABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE LD CITA HAD WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE AS MADE BY THE AO U/S 35(1)(II) OF THE ACT OF RS. 2,71,25,000/-. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF TH E AFORESAID DECISIONS, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 6 ITA NO. 2315/KOL/2019 SHRI PRADIP TONDON, AY- 2013- 14 6. SO, SINCE THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS AND IN LAW , I RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF INDIAN COAL AGENCY (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION IN THE CASE M/S. MACO CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) ALLOW THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S. 80GGA OF THE ACT OF RS.5,00,000/- AND OVERTURN THE DECISION OF THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19TH FEBR UARY, 2020. SD/- (ABY. T. VARKEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :19TH FEBRUARY, 2020 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT SHRI PRADIP TONDON, 3A/12A, SURYALOK APARTMENTS, MANDEVILLE GARDENS, BALLYGUNGE, KOLKATA-700 019. 2 RESPONDENT ACIT, CIRCLE-62, KOLKATA. 3. 4. 5. CIT(A)-19, KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) CIT- , KOLKATA. DR, ITAT, KOLKATA. (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) BY ORDER, / TRUE COPY, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR