ITAT Affirms Weighted Deductions under Section 35(1)(ii) Despite Subsequent Withdrawal of Donee Approval
1. Introduction
The case of DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata v. M/s Maco Corporation India (P) Ltd. was adjudicated by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on April 13, 2018. This case revolved around the disallowance of a significant donation claimed by M/s Maco Corporation India (P) Ltd. under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The central issue was whether the disallowance of Rs. 4,37,50,000 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified, given the subsequent withdrawal of approval for the donee organizations involved.
2. Summary of the Judgment
The ITAT upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who had deleted the disallowance initially made by the AO and reinstated the deduction claimed by M/s Maco Corporation India (P) Ltd. under Section 35(1)(ii). The Tribunal held that the deduction should not be denied merely because the approval granted to the donee organizations was withdrawn after the donation was made. This decision was consistent with previous judicial pronouncements, including a Supreme Court ruling which emphasized the quasi-judicial nature of such approvals and the lack of retrospective power to alter deductions based on subsequent changes in donee status.
3. Analysis
3.1 Precedents Cited
The Tribunal extensively referred to the Supreme Court case Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (Gwalior) M.P. Ltd. vs. CIT Gwalior (2018) 90 taxmann.com 281 (SC). In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) does not possess the express authority to revoke the registration of donee organizations once granted, especially retrospectively. The Court emphasized that approvals under Section 12A and Section 35(1)(ii) are quasi-judicial and cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn without explicit statutory provisions.
Additionally, the Tribunal referenced multiple High Court decisions, including:
- DIT (Exemptions) v. Mool Chand Khairati Ram Trust [2011] 11 taxmann.com 42/199 Taxman 1/339 ITR 622, Delhi High Court
- Welham Boys' School Society v. CBDT [2006] 285 ITR 74/[2007] 158 Taxman 199, Uttaranchal High Court
- Oxford Academy for Career Development v. Chief CIT [2009] 315 ITR 382, Allahabad High Court
3.2 Legal Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that the amendment introduced by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006 specifies that deductions under Section 35(1)(ii) remain unaffected by subsequent withdrawal of a donee organization's approval. The core reasoning was anchored in the fact that the donation was genuine and the donee organization was duly recognized at the time of the contribution.
The Tribunal further emphasized that in the absence of explicit statutory provisions empowering the CBDT or CIT to revoke approvals retrospectively, such actions are beyond their jurisdiction. This aligns with the quasi-judicial nature of approvals under Sections 12A and 35(1)(ii), ensuring stability and predictability in tax deductions related to charitable contributions.
3.3 Impact
This judgment has significant implications for corporations and entities claiming tax deductions under Section 35(1)(ii). It reinforces the protection of deductions based on the donee's status at the time of donation, shielding donors from future discrepancies arising from changes in the donee's approval status.
Furthermore, it upholds the integrity of the donation mechanism by emphasizing the importance of due diligence at the time of contribution, without penalizing donors for subsequent administrative changes beyond their control.
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
4.1 Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act
This section allows for tax deductions on donations made to scientific research organizations, universities, colleges, and other institutions. The deduction is weighted at 175% of the amount donated, provided certain conditions are met.
4.2 Quasi-Judicial Orders
These are decisions made by administrative agencies that have powers resembling those of courts. They involve the application of legal standards to specific factual situations but are not purely judicial in nature.
4.3 Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT)
The CBDT is the apex body responsible for administering direct tax laws in India. It formulates policies, ensures compliance, and adjudicates certain tax disputes.
5. Conclusion
The ITAT's decision in DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata v. M/s Maco Corporation India (P) Ltd. serves as a pivotal precedent affirming that tax deductions under Section 35(1)(ii) remain secure even if the donee organization's approval is later revoked. By aligning with Supreme Court jurisprudence and reinforcing the quasi-judicial nature of tax approvals, the Tribunal ensures that genuine donations are duly recognized and protected from retrospective administrative changes. This judgment upholds the principles of fairness and certainty in the tax deduction framework, benefiting corporations and encouraging philanthropic contributions without the fear of future disallowances.
Comments