SANKETKUMAR JAYANTILAL THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant case, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 5,00,000 being deductions claimed under the provisions of the Act. The same may be deleted. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in charging interest under sections 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T Act as applicable.

The assessee filed his return of income u/s. 139(1) for the assessment year 29-06-2019 declaring total income at Rs. 14,00,080/-. The case of the assessee was reopened on the fact that the assessee made donations to one Yuva Jan Jagrity Party which was engaged in the activity aiding and abating tax evasion. The assessee made a donation of Rs. 5,00,000/- through said party and claimed a deduction for the same u/s. 80GGC of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 22-03-2023. In response to notice u/s. 148, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 14,00,680/- after claiming of Rs. 6,90,619/- including donation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. In response to notice u/s. 142(1), the assessee submitted copy of receipt of donations made to Yuva Jan Jagrity Party of Rs. 1,00,000/- Manavadhikar National Party of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Apna Desh Party of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The assessee was issued show cause notices dated 29-11-2024. In response to the notice, dated 29-11- 2024, the assessee submitted that the assessee received LIC receipt amounting to Rs. Rs. 30,347/-, Sukanya Pass Book Showing deposits of Rs.1,21,000/- EPFO statement showing contribution of Rs. 1,16,395/- self health insurance policy claim of Rs. 15,614/- and health insurance policy of Rs. 28,475/- for claim of his father health insurance. After taking cognizance of the assessee’s reply, the

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

The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has given all the details related to the donations to the political parties. Thus disallowance was not justifiable. The ld. A.R. relied upon the following decisions:-

The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. At the time of hearing, the ld. A.R. argued that the assessee has not been given the opportunity of cross-examination related to the parties upon whose statement the Assessing Officer is relied related to the disallowance of donations u/s. 80GGC. From the perusal of the records, it can be seen that the questions related to the said political parties and their officers was reproduced in the order but are not solely relied upon while making the disallowance by the Assessing Officer . In fact, the in para 3.4.2.2, the Assessing Officer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 14-05-2026