PULKIT KARNAWAT,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1556/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 May 2026AY 2019-20204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal with a cryptic order without discussing the merits or evidence. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 4,00,000/- under Section 80GGC for a donation to a political party. The Assessing Officer disallowed this deduction, citing the improbability of a salaried employee making such a large donation and issues with the genuineness of the transaction, especially in light of a search at the party's premises.

What were the issues?

Whether the deduction under Section 80GGC for a political donation was allowable, and whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80GGC,Section 147,Section 132,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR

Hearing: 17.03.2026Pronounced: 11.05.2026

P a g e | 1 ITA No.1556/JPR/2025 Pulkit Karnawat IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1556/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2019-20) Pulkit Karnawat Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.31 Pushkar Road, New Central Revenue Arihant Colony Opp. Building, Opp Session Central Bank of India Court, Ajmer Ajmer 305001 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:CZZPK9414N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT Date of Hearing 17.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 11.05.2026 O R D E R The present appeal has been preferred by assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 10.09.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. No one has put in appearance despite service of notice on behalf of the assessee. It seems that assessee is not interested in prosecuting his appeal;I, therefore, proceed to adjudicate the appeal after hearing the Ld. DR and going through the records.

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1556/JPR/2025 Pulkit Karnawat 3. The sole issue involved in this appeal relates to the disallowance of the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80GGC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), on account of donation to a political party amounting to Rs.4,00,000/-.

4.

The assessee is a salaried employee of ITC and filed return of income declaring a total income of Rs.10,00,400/-, after claiming deduction of Rs.4,00,000/- u/s 80GGC on account of donation to a political party. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee was called upon to explain the source of the donation amount and the genuineness of the transaction. 5. After considering the details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that a search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of the Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular), and that during the course of search action, the President and a key-person of the said party had initially admitted to have been indulged in accepting bogus donations and returning the amount of the donation after retaining some commission amount. The said statements were later on retracted by them. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was just a salaried employee and it was highly improbable that a salaried employee will give a large chunk out of his salary as a donation to political party. He observed that neither the assessee could prove the source of the donation nor the genuineness of the transaction. He, therefore, disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80GGC of the Act.

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1556/JPR/2025 Pulkit Karnawat 6. Being aggrieved by the said order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, a perusal of impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) would reveal that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by way of a short and cryptic order without any discussion on merits. There is no discussion about the evidences furnished by the assessee and how the Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the aforesaid details and evidences furnished by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) just has put his seal on the assessment order without any discussion, which is not justifiable as per law.

7.

The impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) is, therefore, set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits, after giving due opportunity to the assessee to present his case and thereafter to pass a reasoned and speaking order after dealing with the details, evidence and submissions in accordance with law.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 11/05/2026.

Sd/- (Sanjay Garg) Judicial Member Dated 11.05.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS

P a g e | 4 ITA No.1556/JPR/2025 Pulkit Karnawat

More judgments on Section 80GGC

All 195 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80GGC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →