SURYAKANT DAVE,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 3(2)(6) SURAT, SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 779/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 May 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the timing of the mutual fund redemption and the donation, along with other financial transactions, required further verification. The matter was therefore remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 3,00,000/- under Section 80GGC for a donation to a political party. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, treating it as a bogus contribution. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the donation made to the political party was genuine and eligible for deduction under Section 80GGC, and whether the assessee had sufficient verifiable source for the donation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80GGC,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT “SMC” BENCH, SURAT

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.03.2026Pronounced: 11.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT “SMC” BENCH, SURAT (HYBRID HEARING) BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.779/Srt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Suryakant Dave, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 3, Radheshyam Apartment, Ward-3(2)(6), Kailashnagar, Sagrampura, Surat Surat-395002 [PAN No.AHBPD5217C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Mukesh Laddha, AR Appellant by : Respondent by: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 11.05.2026 O R D E R The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi on 22.05.2025 for A.Y. 2019-20.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 3,00,000/- claimed u/s 80GGC despite the donation being made through verifiable banking channels to a duly registered political party. 2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing the claim merely based on generalized findings of a search on third parties, without any direct incriminating material against the appellant. 3. The orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) are bad in law and on facts and deserve to be quashed. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground at the time of hearing.”

ITA No. 779/Srt/2025 Suryakant Dave vs. ITO Asst. Year –2019-20 - 2– 3. The assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 22.07.2019 declaring gross total income of Rs. 20,57,380/-. The assessee claim donation under Section 80GGC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of donation to political party named Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular) during the previous year 2018-19 relevant to the assessment year 2019-20. The case of the case was selected for reassessment and notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 19.04.2023 was issued. The statutory notices were issued. The assessee filed return of income on 15.05.2023 in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. The assessee submitted the details before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer observed that the income turnover to tax in the assessment year 2019-20 represented by and to the extent of the bogus claim of contribution allegedly made by the assessee to Rashtirya Samajwadi Party (Secular) has escaped assessment. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- thereby disallowing the claim of the assessee under Section 80GGC of the Act.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. AR submitted that the details of the bank account along with the sale proceeds of Mutual Fund investment with ICICI Prudential Mutual Fund. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has the source to donate the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the said party. The assessee has transferred the amount on 07.02.2019 to the said political party and before that the assessee is having the sufficient fund

ITA No. 779/Srt/2025 Suryakant Dave vs. ITO Asst. Year –2019-20 - 3– on the very same date. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has proved its onus and the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) has totally ignored the evidences produced before them. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:

(i) Abhishek Jayketu Joshi vs. AC Cir-42(2)(1) (ITA No. 5775/Mum/2025 order dated 13.01.2026) (ii) Vitthaldas Nathubhai Shah vs. PCIT (2025) ITD 77 (iii) ACIT vs. Armee Infotech (2022) 193 ITD 728 (iv) Anish Dubey vs. ACIT (ITA No. 222/Del/2020 order dated 08.05.2024) (v) Chirag Bhikhabhai Patel vs. DCIT (727/Rjt/2025 order dated 12.01.2026) (vi) ACIT vs. Anuj Prakash Gupta (ITA No. 11/Rpr/2026)

7.

The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

8.

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee is a salaried employee and has received the mutual fund amount on the very same date i.e. 07.02.2019 and on the very same date the assessee has made the transfer to the said political party. The maturity date of the mutual funds and the sale proceeds was questioned by the Assessing Officer and besides this the assessee has not established his case that the assessee was not involved in this scam of fraudulent contribution to political parties. The Assessing Officer has categorically mentioned that the said amount is then rerouted back to the donors in cash. The

ITA No. 779/Srt/2025 Suryakant Dave vs. ITO Asst. Year –2019-20 - 4–

bank details of HDFC is only giving the details of other transaction but on 08.02.2019 there is transfer in assessee’s own name shown in HDFC bank to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Besides this there is less expenses data from the period 02.03.2019 till 29.03.2019. These details needs to be verified and therefore, the matter is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the details and decide the matter as per Income Tax Act. The case laws referred by the assessee / Ld. AR are in the context of the factual aspect in those cases in this present assessee’s case the fact needs to be properly verified.

9.

In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This order is pronounced in open court on 11/05/2026

Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 11/05/2026 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / DR, ITAT, Surat 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / ITAT, Surat

1.

Date of dictation 30.04.2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 04.05.2026 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 11.05.2026 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 12.05.2026 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 12.05.2026 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 12.05.2026 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order……………………………………

More judgments on Section 80GGC

All 195 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80GGC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →