PRASHANTI MEDICAL SERVICES & RESEARCH FOUNDATION versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

[2019] 9 S.C.R.

APRASHANTI MEDICAL SERVICES & RESEARCHFOUNDATION

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 5849 of 2019)

JULY 25, 2019

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sub-section 7 of s.35AC – Validity of– In the year 2014 appellant filed an application u/s. 35AC to theCNational Committee for promotion of social and economic welfarefor grant of approval to their hospital project so as to enable any‘assessee’ to incur expenditure by way of making payment of anyamount to the appellant for construction of their approved hospitalproject and accordingly claim appropriate deduction of suchDpayment from his total income during the previous year –Government approved 28 Projects ‘eligible projects’ including theproject of appellant u/s. 35AC – Appellant received donations fromseveral assessees during the years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 –Assessees claimed deduction for the said financial years – However,benefit of deduction was discontinued from the assessment yearE2018-2019 by insertion of sub-section 7 of s.35AC – Appellanturged that they were not able to receive more amount by way ofdonation for their project in the financial year 2017-2018 – Writpetition by appellant challenging the Constitutional validity of sub-section 7 of s.35 – High Court repelled the challenge and dismissedFthe petition – On appeal, held: The real aggrieved parties, whichshould have felt aggrieved by insertion of sub-section (7) in s. 35ACof the Act, were those assessees i.e. donors who despite paying thedonation to the appellant were not allowed to claim deduction ofthe said amount from their total income during the financial year2017-2018 (Assessment year 2018-2019) – However, none of theGassessees have complained – Further, neither the appellant nor theassessees has any right to set up plea of promissory estoppelagainst the exercise of legislative power such as the one exercisedwhile inserting sub-section 7 in section 35AC of the Act – Also, thissub-section was made applicable uniformly to all alike the appellant

PRASHANTI MEDICAL SERVICES & RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. UNIONOF INDIA

prospectively – Time to donate the amount to eligible projects forclaiming deduction for the year 2017-2018 has also expired – Thus,no deduction could be allowed to such assessee for period 2017-2018 – In tax matter, neither any equity nor hardship has any roleto play while deciding the rights of taxpayer qua the Revenue –Therefore, no interference required with the impugned order of theHigh Court.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1. It is not in dispute that 28 projects wereapproved by the Committee by notification dated 07.12.2015 butnone of them (27) has come forward to question the constitutionalvalidity of sub-section (7) except the appellant herein. In otherwords, out of 28 projects owners whose projects were approvedby the Committee by notification dated 07.12.2015, only theappellant herein has felt aggrieved and filed the petition in theHigh Court. Be that as it may, as rightly argued by the respondent(Revenue), the real aggrieved parties, which should have feltaggrieved by insertion of sub-section (7) in Section 35AC of theAct, were those assesses, i.e., Donors who despite paying thedonation to the appellant were not allowed to claim deduction ofthe said amount from their total income during the financial year2017-2018. In other words, one of the main objects for whichSection 35AC was enacted was to allow the assessees to claimdeduction of the amount paid by them to the appellant for theirproject. [Paras 19, 20, 21] [840-B-E]2. As mentioned above, none of the assessees (Donee),who claimed to have paid amount to any eligible projects cameforward complaining that despite their donating the amount tothe appellant for their project, they were denied the benefit ofclaiming deduction of such amount from their total income byvirtue of sub-section (7) of Section 35AC of the Act during thefinancial year 2017-2018. It is not in dispute that the benefit ofthe deduction available under Section 35AC of the Act was dulyavailed of by all the assessees for two financial years, namely,2015-2016 and 2016-2017. [Paras 22, 23] [840-E-F]

A3. The dispute is now confined only to third financial year,i.e., 2017-2018 because for this year, the assessees were notallowed to claim deduction of the amount paid by them to theappellant on account of insertion of sub-section(7) inSection 35AC of the Act with effect from 01.04.2017. [Para 24][840-G-H]B

4. As rightly argued by the respondent (Revenue), pleaof promissory estoppel is not available to an assessee againstthe exercise of legislative power and nor any vested right accruesto an assessee in the matter of grant of any tax concession tohim. In other words, neither the appellant nor the assessee hasCany right to set up plea of promissory estoppel against theexercise of legislative power such as the one exercised whileinserting sub-section (7) in Section 35AC of the Act (M/s MotilalPadampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. and other cases relied on by thecounsel for the respondent-Revenue). It is more so when this

DCourt finds that this sub-section was made applicable uniformlyto all alike the appellant prospectively. [Para 26] [841-C-D]

5. It is not in dispute that now time to donate the amount toeligible projects for claiming deduction from the total income forthe year 2017-2018 has expired. It is now no longer availabledue to efflux of time. In this view of the matter, even if the appellantEreceived any amount from any assessee for their project, nodeduction could be allowed to such assessee either for the period2017-2018 or for any subsequent period. [Para 27] [841-E]

6. It was, however, stated by the appellant that they havereceived 3.84 crores during the year 2017-2018 from variousFassessees. It was also stated that if sub-section(7) had been heldnot applicable to the appellant’s project then the appellant wouldhave received much more amount than Rs.3.84 crores duringthe financial year 2017-2018, which is clear from the amountreceived by the appellant in earlier two years prior to insertionof sub-section(7), i.e., Rs. 10.97 crores during the financial yearG2015-2016 and Rs. 20.55 crores during the financial year 2016-2017. There is no merit in this submission. In taxing statute, aplea based on equity or/and hardship is not legally sustainable.The constitutional validity of any provision and especiallytaxing provision cannot be struck down on such reasoning.H[Paras 28, 29] [841-F-H; 842-A]

7. The appellant urged that this Court may considerappropriate to invoke powers under Article 142 of theConstitution and allow the appellant to receive donation even forthe third financial year in terms of the notification dated 07.12.2015from their donors. This submission cannot be accepted for morethan one reason. First, in tax matter, neither any equity norhardship has any role to play while deciding the rights of anytaxpayer qua the Revenue; Second, once the action is held inaccordance with law and especially in tax matters, the questionof invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution doesnot arise; and third, the appellant’s Donors were admittedlyallowed to claim deduction of the amount paid by them to theappellant under Section 35AC during the two financial years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. It is for all these reasons, the matter mustrest there. [Paras 30, 31] [842-B-D]S.L. Srinivasa Jute Twine Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India& Anr., (2006) 2 SCC 740 : [2006] 2 SCR 235 ;Sangam Spinners v. Regional Provident FundCommissioner I, (2008) 1 SCC 391 : [ 2007] 12SCR 883 ; Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I,New Delhi v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 1 SCC1 : [2014] 12 SCR 1037 ; State of Kerala & Anr. v.Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (WVG.) Co. Ltd. Etc.,(1973) 2 SCC 713 : [ 1974] 1 SCR 671 ; MotilalPadampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors.,(1979) 2 SCC 409 : [1979] 2 SCR 641 ; R.K. Garg v.Union of India & Ors., (1981) 4 SCC 675 : [1982] 1SCR 947 ; Kasinka Trading & Anr. v. Union of India &Anr., (1995) 1 SCC 274 : [ 1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 448 ;Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer& Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 625 : [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 264 ; Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. & Ors. v. State of U.P.& Ors., (2011) 3 SCC 193 : [2011] 3 SCR 134 ; BajajHindustan Ltd. v. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. & Anr.,(2011) 1 SCC 640 : [2010] 15 SCR 156 ; KothariIndustrial Corporation Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu ElectricityBoard & Anr., (2016) 4 SCC 134 : [2016] 1 SCR 564– referred to.

ACase Law Reference

DCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5849of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.09.2017 of the High Courtof Gujarat at Ahmedabad in SCA No. 7558 of 2017.

EArvind Datar, Sr. Adv., Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala,Ms. Devika Mohan, Nishant Rao, E. C. Agrawala, Advs. for theAppellant.

K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Meenakshi Grover, ParthivGoswami (For Mrs. Anil Katiyar), Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated14.09.2017 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in SCAGNo.7558 of 2017 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed bythe appellant herein.

3. few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of thisappeal, which involves short point.

4. The appellant herein is the petitioner and the respondents hereinHare the respondents in the petition out of which this appeal arises.

5. The appellant is Charitable Trust registered under theprovisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The appellant has setup Heart Hospital in Ahmadabad. The commencement of the projectof the appellant’s hospital began in the year 2014 (05.05.2014).

6. On 27.09.2014, the appellant filed an application under Section35AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act)to the National Committee for Promotion of Social and EconomicWelfare, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi (hereinafterreferred to as “the Committee”) for grant of approval to their hospitalproject as specified in Section 35AC of the Act so as to enable any“assessee” to incur expenditure by way of making payment of any amountto the appellant for construction of their approved hospital project andaccordingly claim appropriate deduction of such payment from his totalincome during the previous year. Like the appellant, several persons, asspecified in Section 35AC of the Act, also made applications to theCommittee for grant of approval to their hospital projects.

7. notification was issued by the Government of India on07.12.2015 mentioning therein that the Committee has approved 28projects as “eligible projects” under Section 35AC of the Act. Thename of the appellant appears at serial No. 10 in the notification dated07.12.2015. It reads as under:

S.No.Name of the Project or Maximum EInstitutionscheme and amount of estimated cost to be cost thereofallowed as deduction under Section 35AC and period of 10.Prashanti Prashanti The approvalFMedical Medical Committee Research Services & recommended Foundation, Reasearch approval for Sri Satya Sai Foundation, the project at Heart Ahmedabadthe estimated Hospital, RS.250.00 cost of Kashindra CroreRs.250.00 Village, crore for GAhmedabad-three financial Dholka years Road(Gujarat)commencing with financial year, 2015-16,i.e., 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18H

A8. According to the appellant, they received amount by way ofdonation from several assesses during the years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. These assesses then claimed deduction of the amount, whichthey had donated to the appellant for their hospital project, from theirtotal income. As per the appellant, they received donations in threefinancial years from several assesses for their hospital project as detailedBbelow:

9. The benefit of claiming deduction was, however, discontinuedfrom the assessment year 2018-2019 by insertion of sub-section(7) inSection 35AC of the Act by the Finance Act, 2016 with effect from01.04.2017.

D10. It is this insertion of sub-section(7) in Section 35AC of theAct, which gave rise to filing of the petition by the appellant in the GujaratHigh Court. The appellant in the petition questioned the constitutionalvalidity of sub-section(7) of Section 35AC of the Act inter alia on theground that once the Committee granted an approval to the appellant’shospital project for period of three financial years, the same could notEbe withdrawn qua the appellant on the strength of insertion of sub-section (7) in Section 35AC of the Act. In other words, the challengewas on the ground that sub-section (7) of Section 35AC is essentiallyprospective in nature and, therefore, it will have no application to thoseprojects which were approved by the Committee prior to insertion ofsub-section(7), i.e., 01.04.2017. The challenge was also on the groundFthat the Revenue cannot apply sub-section (7) retrospectively andwithdraw the benefits, whether fully or partially, which were approvedto the appellant. It was, therefore, contended that the appellant and theassessees should be held entitled to avail of the full benefit for the threefinancial years in terms of the notification dated 07.12.2015.G

11. The respondent (Revenue) supported insertion of sub-section(7) in Section 35AC and inter alia contended that, firstly, insertion ofsub-section (7) is prospective in nature; secondly, it operates qua everyperson alike the appellant irrespective of the approval granted by theCommittee; Thirdly, sub-section (7), in clear terms, provides

discontinuance of deduction only from the assessment year 2018-2019onwards; Fourthly, this intention of the legislature is clear from the perusalof the budget speech of the Minister of Finance, notes on clauses andmemorandum explaining the amended provisions in the Finance Bill, 2016;Fifthly, the appellant not being an assessee under Section 35AC of theAct has no locus to raise the issue in question and nor they are, in anyway, affected due to insertion of sub-section (7); Sixthly, the appellantneither has any vested right in such matters nor has any right to set up aplea of promissory estoppel against the exercise of any legislative powersuch as the one exercised by the Parliament while inserting sub-section(7);and lastly, the appellant has already received substantial donations fromseveral assessees for their hospital project during the two financial years(2015-2016 and 2016-2017) and, therefore, there is neither any hardshipnor any prejudice caused to the appellant due to insertion of sub-section(7) in Section 35AC of the Act.

12. The High Court, in the impugned order, repelled the challengeand while upholding the pleas raised by the respondent(Revenue) dismissedthe appellant’s petition, which has given rise to filing of this appeal by theappellant after obtaining special leave from this Court.

13. Heard Mr. Arvind Datar, learned senior counsel for theappellant and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel for therespondents.

14. Mr. Arvind Datar, learned senior counsel appearing for theappellant reiterated the aforementioned submissions, which were urgedin High Court, and while elaborating contended that the appellant so alsothe assesses, who made payment to the appellant in the financial year2017-2018 should have been allowed to claim deduction during thefinancial year 2017-2018 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) alsonotwithstanding insertion of sub-section (7) in Section 35AC of the Actwith effect from 01.04.2017.

15. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed relianceon the decisions of this Court in S.L. Srinivasa Jute Twine Mills (P)Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr., (2006) 2 SCC 740, Sangam Spinnersvs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner I, (2008) 1 SCC 391and Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)-I, New Delhi vs. VatikaTownship Pvt. Ltd., (2015) 1 SCC 1.

A16. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent (Revenue)supported the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Courtand prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Learned counsel placed relianceon the decisions in State of Kerala & Anr. vs. Gwalior Rayon SilkManufacturing (WVG.) Co. Ltd. Etc., (1973) 2 SCC 713, MotilalPadampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (1979) 2BSCC 409, R.K. Garg vs. Union of India & Ors., (1981) 4 SCC 675,Kasinka Trading & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr., (1995) 1 SCC274, Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer &Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 625, Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. & Ors. vs. Stateof U.P. & Ors., (2011) 3 SCC 193, Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. vs. SirCShadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 640 and KothariIndustrial Corporation Ltd. vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board &Anr., (2016) 4 SCC 134.

17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with theDimpugned order of the High Court.

18. Section 35AC was inserted in the Act with effect from01.04.1992 whereas sub-section (7), which is subject matter of thisappeal, was inserted in Section 35AC with effect from 01.04.2017, whichreads as under:E

“35AC. (1) Where an assessee incurs any expenditure byway of payment of any sum to public sector company or alocal authority or to an association or institution approvedby the National Committee for carrying out any eligibleproject or scheme, the assessee shall, subject to theFprovisions of this section, be allowed deduction of theamount of such expenditure incurred during the previousyear :

Provided that company may, for claiming the deductionunder this sub-section, incur expenditure either by way ofGpayment of any sum as aforesaid or directly on the eligibleproject or scheme.

(2) The deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be allowedunless the assessee furnishes along with his return ofincome certificate—

(a) where the payment is to public sector company or alocal authority or an association or institution referred toin sub-section (1), from such public sector company or localauthority or, as the case may be, association or institution;

(b) in any other case, from an accountant, as defined inthe Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288, insuch form, manner and containing such particulars(including particulars relating to the progress in the workrelating to the eligible project or scheme during theprevious year) as may be prescribed.

Explanation.—The deduction, to which the assessee isentitled in respect of any sum paid to public sectorcompany or local authority or to an association orinstitution for carrying out the eligible project or schemereferred to in this section applies, shall not be denied merelyon the ground that subsequent to the payment of such sumby the assessee,—

(a) the approval granted to such association or institutionhas been withdrawn; or

(b) the notification notifying the eligible project or schemecarried out by the public sector company or local authorityor association or institution has been withdrawn.

(3) Where deduction under this section is claimed andallowed for any assessment year in respect of anyexpenditure referred to in sub-section (1), deduction shallnot be allowed in respect of such expenditure under anyother provision of this Act for the same or any otherassessment year.

(4) Where an association or institution is approved by theNational Committee under sub-section (1), andsubsequently—

(i) that Committee is satisfied that the project or the schemeis not being carried on in accordance with all or any of theconditions subject to which approval was granted; or

(ii) such association or institution, to which approval hasbeen granted, has not furnished to the National Committee,after the end of each financial year, report in such formand setting forth such particulars and within such time asmay be prescribed,

Bthe National Committee may, at any time, after giving areasonable opportunity of showing cause against theproposed withdrawal to the concerned association orinstitution, withdraw the approval:

Provided that copy of the order withdrawing theapproval shall be forwarded by the National Committee tothe Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the concernedassociation or institution.

(5) Where any project or scheme has been notified as aneligible project or scheme under clause (b) ofthe Explanation, and subsequently—

(i) the National Committee is satisfied that the project orthe scheme is not being carried on in accordance with allor any of the conditions subject to which such project orscheme was notified; or

(ii) report in respect of such eligible project or schemehas not been furnished after the end of each financial year,in such form and setting forth such particulars and withinsuch time as may be prescribed,

such notification may be withdrawn in the same manner inwhich it was issued:

Provided that reasonable opportunity of showingcause against the proposed withdrawal shall be given bythe National Committee to the concerned association,institution, public sector company or local authority, as thecase may be:

Provided further that copy of the notification by whichthe notification of the eligible project or scheme is withdrawnshall be forwarded to the Assessing Officer havingjurisdiction over the concerned association, institution,

public sector company or local authority, as the case maybe, carrying on such eligible project or scheme.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any otherprovision of this Act, where—

(i) the approval of the National Committee, granted to anassociation or institution, is withdrawn under sub-section(4) or the notification in respect of eligible project or schemeis withdrawn in the case of public sector company or localauthority or an association or institution under sub-section(5); or

(ii) company has claimed deduction under the proviso tosub-section (1) in respect of any expenditure incurreddirectly on the eligible project or scheme and the approvalfor such project or scheme is withdrawn by the NationalCommittee under sub-section (5),

the total amount of the payment received by the publicsector company or the local authority or the association orthe institution, as the case may be, in respect of which suchcompany or authority or association or institution hasfurnished certificate referred to in clause (a) of sub-section(2) or the deduction claimed by company under the provisoto sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be the income of suchcompany or authority or association or institution, as thecase may be, for the previous year in which such approvalor notification is withdrawn and tax shall be charged on suchincome at the maximum marginal rate in force for that year.

(7) No deduction under this section shall be allowed inrespect of any assessment year commencing on or afterthe 1st day of April, 2018.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—

(a) “National Committee” means the Committeeconstituted by the Central Government, from amongstpersons of eminence in public life, in accordance with therules made under this Act;

DEF

(b) “eligible project or scheme” means such project orscheme for promoting the social and economic welfare of,or the uplift of, the public as the Central Government may,by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalfon the recommendations of the National Committee.”

B19. It is not in dispute that 28 projects were approved by theCommittee by notification dated 07.12.2015 but none of them (27) hascome forward to question the constitutional validity of sub-section (7)except the appellant herein. In other words, out of 28 projects ownerswhose projects were approved by the Committee by notification dated07.12.2015, only the appellant herein has felt aggrieved and filed theCpetition in the High Court.

20. Be that as it may, as rightly argued by the learned counsel forthe respondent (Revenue), the real aggrieved parties, which should havefelt aggrieved by insertion of sub-section (7) in Section 35AC of the Act,were those assesses, i.e., Donors who despite paying the donation toDthe appellant were not allowed to claim deduction of the said amountfrom their total income during the financial year 2017-2018.

21. In other words, one of the main objects for which Section35AC was enacted was to allow the assessees to claim deduction of theamount paid by them to the appellant for their project.E

22. As mentioned above, none of the assessees (Donee), whoclaimed to have paid amount to any eligible projects came forwardcomplaining that despite their donating the amount to the appellant fortheir project, they were denied the benefit of claiming deduction of suchamount from their total income by virtue of sub-section (7) of SectionF35AC of the Act during the financial year 2017-2018.

23. It is not in dispute that the benefit of the deduction availableunder Section 35AC of the Act was duly availed of by all the assesseesfor two financial years, namely, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017.

24. The dispute is now confined only to third financial year, i.e.,G2017-2018 because for this year, the assessees were not allowed toclaim deduction of the amount paid by them to the appellant on accountof insertion of sub-section(7) in Section 35AC of the Act with effectfrom 01.04.2017.

25. We are of the view that sub-section (7) is prospective in itsoperation and, therefore, all the assessees were rightly allowed to claimdeduction of the amount paid by them to eligible projects from their totalincome during two financial years, namely, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. Ifsub-section (7) had been retrospective in its operation then the deductionfor 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 too would have been disallowed.Admittedly, such is not the case here.

26. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondent(Revenue), plea of promissory estoppel is not available to an assesseeagainst the exercise of legislative power and nor any vested right accruesto an assessee in the matter of grant of any tax concession to him. Inother words, neither the appellant nor the assessee has any right to setup plea of promissory estoppel against the exercise of legislative powersuch as the one exercised while inserting sub-section (7) in Section 35ACof the Act (see-M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.(supra)and other cases relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent-Revenue). It is more so when we find that this sub-section was madeapplicable uniformly to all alike the appellant prospectively.

27. It is not in dispute that now time to donate the amount toeligible projects for claiming deduction from the total income for theyear 2017-2018 has expired. It is now no longer available due to effluxof time. In this view of the matter, even if the appellant received anyamount from any assessee for their project, no deduction could be allowedto such assessee either for the period 2017-2018 or for any subsequentperiod.

28. It was, however, stated by the learned counsel for the appellantthat the appellant has received 3.84 crores during the year 2017-2018from various assessees. It was also stated that if sub-section(7) hadbeen held not applicable to the appellant’s project then the appellantwould have received much more amount than Rs.3.84 crores during thefinancial year 2017-2018, which is clear from the amount received bythe appellant in earlier two years prior to insertion of sub-section(7), i.e.,Rs. 10.97 crores during the financial year 2015-2016 and Rs. 20.55 croresduring the financial year 2016-2017.

29. We find no merit in this submission. In taxing statute, pleabased on equity or/and hardship is not legally sustainable. The constitutional

Avalidity of any provision and especially taxing provision cannot be struckdown on such reasoning.

30. Learned counsel for the appellant then urged that having regardto the fact that the appellant has set up charitable hospital and thatthey were not able to receive more amount by way of donation for theirBproject in the third financial year 2017-2018, this Court may considerappropriate to invoke powers under Article 142 of the Constitution andallow the appellant to receive donation even for the third financial yearin terms of the notification dated 07.12.2015 from their donors.

31. We are afraid, we cannot accept this submission for moreCthan one reason. First, as held above, in tax matter, neither any equitynor hardship has any role to play while deciding the rights of any taxpayerqua the Revenue; Second, once the action is held in accordance withlaw and especially in tax matters, the question of invoking powers underArticle 142 of the Constitution does not arise; and third, the appellant’sDonors were admittedly allowed to claim deduction of the amount paidDby them to the appellant under Section 35AC during the two financialyears 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. It is for all these reasons, the mattermust rest there.

32. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on thedecision of S.L. Srinivasa Jute Twine Mills (P) Ltd. (supra), SangamESpinners (supra) and CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., (supra).In our view, in the light of the foregoing discussion and the findingsrecorded, the arguments based on the principle laid down in these decisionscannot be accepted. We, therefore, need not deal with this issue anymore.F33. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in theappeal. It is accordingly dismissed.

Ankit Gyan

Appeal dismissed.