Rajeev R Chitrabhanu, Mumbai vs Assessee

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by CIT(A)-8, Mumbai and it pertains to A.Y. 2009-10.

2. Though notice was sent to the assessee by RPAD, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal exparte, qua assessee. We have heard the learned D.R. and carefully perused the record.

3. Assessee is a salaried employee of J.M. Financial Services Ltd. He was also deriving rental income, capital gains, interest income and professional fees. For the year under consideration assessee declared total income of `5,80,11,397/-. The case having been selected for scrutiny the AO called for records and noticed that assessee claimed a deduction of `15,00,000/- under section 80GGA of the Act referable to the donation made to Champalal Gajaraj Mehta Trust. Assessee obtained the necessary certificate concerning claim under section 35CCA of the Act, supposed to be issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu-III, Madras-34.

4. The AO has gone through certificate dated 26.06.1989 and noticed that it did not contain certificate with regard to the date of commencement 2 ITA No. 993/Mum/2013 Shri Rajeev R. Chitrabhanu

of the trust, i.e. whether it was prior to 1st March, 1983 or not. It was also noticed that the certificate has been signed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu is not the signatory on the certificate. The third and most important thing is that the certificate is issued on 26.06.1989 and its validity is only upto 31st March, 2009. When the above mentioned defects were pointed out the assessee submitted that he was a bonafide donor and apparently gone by the document issued by the authority and hence he is eligible for deduction under section 80GGA of the Act.

5. The AO observed that the certificate is not in the prescribed format and there are number of defects in the certificate issued under section 35CCA due to which the authenticity of the certificate is doubtful. He further observed that Champalal Gajaraj Mehta Trust has not fulfilled the conditions prescribed under section 35CCA and hence any donation given by the donor to the said trust cannot be allowed as deduction under section 80GGA. In short, the case of the AO is that the certificate issued by the competent authority being doubtful, the nature of the donation and the bonafides of the donation would not be sufficient to claim deduction under section 80GGA or 80G of the Act.

6. Aggrieved, assessee contended before the CIT(A) that even if the Champalal Gajaraj Mehta Trust has not fulfilled the conditions prescribed under section 35CCA, in order to be eligible for deduction under section 80GGA of the Act, at least the alternate plea of the assessee with regard to the claim under section 80G should have been considered on merits.

7. None appeared on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A). Therefore the matter was disposed of exparte, qua the assessee, wherein the learned CIT(A) observed that section 35CCA was introduced to give impetus to the Rural Development Programmes and one of the conditions therein is that the programmes of rural development should be approved by the prescribed authority before 1st March, 1983 whereas in the instant case the certificate produced by the assessee does not show that it was commenced/approved before 1983 and was valid only upto 31.03.2009 and the genuineness of the same is doubtful. In fact the trust is not doing anything for rural 3 ITA No. 993/Mum/2013 Shri Rajeev R. Chitrabhanu

development but has come up with a Medical College, Hospital Education Institution, Home for Old Age/Orphanage, etc. Since no other details were available on the face of this it has to be assumed that the trust is nothing to do with rural development programmes and hence it has not fulfilled the conditions prescribed under section 35CCA of the Act. He thus affirmed the view taken by the AO.

8. With regard to the alternate plea of the assessee the learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee has not given receipt of payment enabling it to claim deduction under section 80G. Thus, on both counts the plea of the assessee was rejected.

9. Further aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. Even at this stage assessee could not furnish any evidence to prove that the assessee was otherwise eligible to claim deduction either under section 80GGA or under section 80G of the Act. In the absence of any material on record to controvert the findings of the CIT(A) we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) and therefore affirm the order of the CIT(A).

10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15th June, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Arora) (D. Manmohan) Accountant Member Vice President

Mumbai, Dated: 15th June, 2015

Copy to:

1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) - 8, Mumbai 4. The CIT- 4, Mumbai City 5. The DR, "D" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai

By Order

//True Copy// Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai n.p.