IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &

SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4070/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year : 2014–15 Unimax Chemicals V. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited Ward 4(3)(1), RSC 14/18, Room No. 648, Plot No. 32, 6^th Floor, Ground floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Near Sulochana Maharshi Karve Road, Hospital, New Marine Lines, Sector 2 Charkop, Churchgate, Kandivali(West), Mumbai-400020.

Mumbai-400067.

PAN/GIR No. AAACU0789M (Appellant) .. (Respondent Assessee by Shri. Rashmikant Modi/ Ms.

Ketkaki Rajshirke Revenue by Shri. Nishant Somaiya, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/12/2024 Date of Pronouncement 15/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M):

1.

Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2014-15, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee's first appeal.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarised as that the appellant assessee is a private limited company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting pharmaceutical products. The appellant e-filled it's return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 29.09.2014, declaring total income of Rs. 2,53,44,620/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act for the reason that the donation of Rs. 20,00,000/- paid by the assessee to M/s. Herbicure health care Bio Herbal research, hereinafter referred as Herbicure, was bogus based on an accommodation entry. The notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021 and was duly served upon the assessee. The return of income filed in response to notice u/s. 148 was the same as that of return filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee submitted required details electronically through e-filing portal. Learned assessing officer found that during the survey carried out u/s.133A of the Act on 27.01.2015 at Herbicure, the statement of Shri. Swapan Rajan Das Gupta, founder director of Herbicure, was recorded, wherein Mr. Gupta stated that this organisation accepted the donation and gave back the same to the donor after deducting commission @5% on the said amount. Learned assessing officer, further found that the notification granting approval to Herbicure, under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act, was withdrawn with the retrospective effect vide S.02882(E) dated 06.09.2016. Learned assessing officer drew conclusions accordingly and added the weighted deduction of Rs. 35,00,000/- claimed by the assessee on the donation of Rs. 20,00,000/- with further addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- as presumptive commission @ 5% of the said donation of Rs. 20,00,000/- to Herbicure. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee's appeal.

3. Assessee has approached this Tribunal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- claimed by the appellant as weighted deduction u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Act, in respect of donation paid by assessee to the Herbicure and further erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/-, being commission estimated @5% of alleged bogus donation of Rs. 20,00,000/- without affording an opportunity of hearing in violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. Perused the records. Heard learned representative for the assessee and learned DR for the revenue.

5. Learned AR submitted that the assessee has given donation of Rs. 20,00,000/- to Herbicure through banking channels. Assessee duly produced the donation receipts along with the recognition certificate of the donee. Learned assessing officer has not found any fault with the documents submitted by the assessee. Learned assessing officer, has relied merely upon the report submitted by the investigation wing of Kolkata which was conducted during the course of survey carried out u/s. 133A of the Act. Learned assessing officer could not have relied upon the general re