DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. PARASHAR DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1045/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 June 2026AY 2016-178 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the deletion of an addition of Rs. 80,00,000 made by the AO on account of bogus donations. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition, citing lack of cross-examination for the evidence shared by the Revenue. The assessee argued that the donation was made via RTGS and supported by receipts.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the donation to the political party was bogus, based on extensive investigation material and statements from individuals admitting to a bogus donation scam. The Tribunal found that the political party was not filing contribution reports and was being used as a vehicle for accommodation entries.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of bogus donations is sustainable when the assessee claims to have made payments through RTGS and obtained receipts, and whether the denial of cross-examination vitiates the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 132,Section 80GGB,Section 80GGC,Section 13A,Section 29C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Bharat S. Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr DR
Hearing: 23.03.2026Pronounced: 09.06.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 1045/Ahd/2025
CO No. 76/Ahd/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:

-

This appeal has been filed by the Revenue and the corresponding Cross Objection has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 14.03.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016–17. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. Whether the CIT(A) has erred in facts and law in deleting the addition of Rs.80,00,000/-

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,634 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →