RAMAKANTA SAHOO,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT/ACIT, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 306/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 July 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed without an effective hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a donation of Rs. 6,00,000/- under Section 80GGC, which the AO disallowed as bogus. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without affording an effective opportunity of hearing is sustainable. Whether the disallowance of deduction under Section 80GGC is justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80GGC,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Hearing: 22.07.2026Pronounced: 23.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN Before Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member ITA No. 306/DDN/2026 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ramakanta Sahoo, Vs DCIT/ACIT, Flat No. 205, Sector-20, Panchkula, Central Circle, Haryana-134117 Dehradun-248001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BCJPS8051B Assessee by : None (Adjournment application is rejected) Revenue by : Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 23.07.2026

ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.10.2025 of ld. CIT(A)-3, Noida passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the appeal was decided ex-parte and the addition made by the AO in the assessment order dated 17.02.2024 were confirmed.

2.

Facts in brief as culled out from the orders of the authorities below are that in consequence to the search and seizure action on various political parties it became known that the assessee had made donation of Rs.5,00,000/- to a political party namely Apna Desh Party. It was noticed that the donation

2 ITA No. 306/DDN/2026 Ramakanta Sahoo made by the assessee was a bogus donation. Accordingly, proceeding u/s 147 of the Act were initiated by issuing notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2023 which was duly served electronically. In compliance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee has filed his return of income on 29.04.2023. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was centralized vide order dated 01.05.2023 of PCIT, Dehradun. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) dated 12.12.2023 alongwith notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued and assessee was asked to explain as to why the donation of Rs.6,00,000/- claimed u/s 80GGC of the Act be not disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. In compliance of the notice, the assessee submitted that donation of Rs.6,00,000/- was made genuinely and receipt of the said amount was filed stating that the donation has been paid through IMPS and also his ICICI bank account as per details mentioned herein. However, the ld. AO did not accept the explanation given by the assessee and disallowed the deduction u/s 80GGC of the Act to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-.

3.

Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has dismissed the same ex- parte by passing the impugned order.

4.

Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds:

3 ITA No. 306/DDN/2026 Ramakanta Sahoo

5.

No one argued on behalf of the assessee and adjournment request was declined.

6.

We have heard theld. DR.The ld. DR in his argument has supported the order of the ld. lower authorities stating that the assessee has failed to present its case before the ld. CIT(A) and has suffered the ex-parte order deliberately.

7.

We have considered the rival submissions and examined the record. Section 250(2)(a) lays down as under: “250(2) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal- (a) the appellant, either in person or by an authorized representative;”

4 ITA No. 306/DDN/2026 Ramakanta Sahoo 8. Thus, the hearing mandated by Section 250(2)(a) of the Act is not a mere formality but a mandatory statutory requirement for following the principle of natural justice by the quasi-judicial authority.

9.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed without effective hearing and principle of natural justice has not been followed For these reasons, the impugned order is not maintainable and accordingly set aside. The end of justice shall be met in case the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh by affording an effective opportunity of hearing and considering the submissions to be made by the appellant/assessee. The assessee/appellant is also directed to make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the Ld. CIT(A) within the period of 60 days of this order.

10.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/07/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Awasthi) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 23/07/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 80GGC

All 195 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80GGC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →