Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jabalpur
Mittal Aluminium Co. vs Income-Tax Officer on 22 October, 1986
Equivalent citations: [1987]20ITD106(JAB)
ORDER
S.S. Mehra, Judicial Member
1. The assessee by its present appeal challenges order dated 4-11-1984 of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi for the assessment year 1982-83, inter alia, on the following ground :
That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law in not allowing the deductions in respect of the deductions under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and upholding the order of the Income-tax Officer.
2. The assessee is a registered firm by status and its accounting period was the year ending 31-3-1982. The assessee appears to have made a donation of Rs. 3 lakhs to SJ. Jindal Trust, Bangalore on the basis of a photostat copy of the receipts showing donations and on the basis of approval granted by the Indian Council of Medical Research dated 6-2-1981. The learned ITO allowed deduction equal to the amount donated, i.e., Rs. 3 lakhs, under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The learned ITO, however, did not allow weighted deduction under Section 35(2A). The non-allowance of weighted deduction was contested by the assessee.
3. It was argued before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by Shri N.S. Bhatnagar, the learned advocate, that the donation was given by the assessee to a research programme as approved vide Notification No. SO 1368 dated 7-3-1981. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed denial of weighted deduction under Section 35(2A), inter alia, with the following observation :
This institute is claimed to be run by SJ. Jindal Trust to whom the donation was made. There is no approval at all of any programme of research for the purposes of Section 35(2A). For that purpose the programme has to be separately approved by the prescribed authority. In this connection, by way of an example, reference is invited to Notification No. SO 1357 dated 20-1-1981 provided in [1981] 130 ITR (St.) 21. The programme has to be approved indicating, inter alia, the estimated outlay, proposed date of commencement of the programme and its anticipated date of completion. The programme can be run by an association approved under Section 35(1)(ii). But the programme has to be separately approved. If there is no such approval, as in the present case, the appellant will be entitled to deduction equal to sums donated under Section 35(1)(II) and not equal to 1 time the sum donated.
4. The assessee's present appeal is against the said action of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). On behalf of the assessee Shri Bhatnagar, the learned counsel, again repeated the arguments earlier made before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and also invited our attention to page 10 of the paper book being a copy of the letter dated 6-2-1981 put up on signature of Director General of the Indian Council of Medical Research and addressed to the Under Secretary of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, informing that the Indian Council of Medical Association approves the Institute of Naturopathy and Yogic Sciences, Bangalore for the purpose of Section 35(1)(w), read with Rule 6(ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, under the category of 'scientific research association' in the field of medical research. On the basis of said page it was Shri Bhatnagar's contention that weighted deduction under Section 35(2A) should have not been denied to the assessee.
5. On behalf of the revenue Mrs. Manjari Kocher, the learned departmental representative, placed reliance on the impugned finding.
6. Submissions have been heard and considered. The facts fortunately in this case are not in dispute. Donation of Rs. 3 lakhs is made by the assessee to Jindal Trust, Bangalore. Normal deduction has already been allowed. The issue before us is whether the assessee is allowed to deduction at one and a half times of the sum donated.
7. Section 35(1)(n) speaks about the donation to a scientific research association which has been approved for the purpose of this clause by the prescribed authority. In the case before us the approval under Section 35(1)(/j) is there as is clear from page 10 of the paper book. This aspect is not in dispute. The assessee's contention is that the said approval should also be considered as approval for the purposes of Section 35(2A). According to the learned counsel the approval accorded by the Indian Council of Medical Research should be considered as sufficient for allowing weighted deduction. This submission of the learned counsel appears to be misconstrued as the approval at page 10 meets the requirements of Section 35(1)(ii) and for meeting the requirements of Section 35(2A) the programme is required to be approved for which the donation was made. On behalf of the assessee no evidence is brought on record indicating that the programme has as well been approved. This factual position is not seen to be in dispute with reference to evidence. The lower authorities denied the assessor's claim for weighted deduction on this basis. In view of the clear factual position it is indeed difficult to infer any mistake in the actions of the lower authorities and the same is, therefore, confirmed.
8. No other ground was either raised or pressed before us. The paper book has been considered.
9. In the result the appeal is dismissed.