ALKESHKUMAR LALBHAI PATEL,GUJARAT vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2436/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 May 2026AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not properly examine the bank statements and supporting details provided by the assessee regarding the donation. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,17,500/- under Section 80GGC for donations to a political party. Information received from a search operation on political parties indicated this donation might be bogus, leading to the reopening of the assessee's case. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction and added it back to the assessee's income.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer properly verified the donation claim under Section 80GGC, and if not, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh examination.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139,Section 80GGC,Section 147,Section 132,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. D.R
Pronounced: 19.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2436/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Alkeshkumar Lalbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 401, Gulab Tower, Nr. Sarvoday Ward-5(3)(1), Bunglow, Thaltej Road S.O., Ahmedabad Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad-380054 [PAN No.ADGPP9878G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Chirag Shah, AR Respondent by : Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. D.R. 30.03.2026 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 19.05.2026 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 22.08.2025 for A.Y. 2019-20.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. The assessment order passed u/s 147 of Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the first appellate authority u/s 250 is bad in law and deserved to be uncalled for. 2. The assessing Officer and appellate authority has erred in law and on facts in making and confirming respectively the addition of Rs. 1,17,500/-. The same deserves to be deleted. 3. The appellant craves to reserve his right to add, alter, amend or delete any ground of appeal during the course of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assesse is an individual and filed his Return of Income under Section 139 of the Act for the A.Y 2019-20

ITA No. 2436/Ahd/2025 Alkeshkumar Lalbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year–2019-20 - 2 - declaring total income of Rs. 5,62,820/- after claiming deduction under Section 80GGC of the Act of Rs. 1,17,500/-. Information in the assessee’s case was disseminated subsequent to search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 conducted on 07.09.2022 in the case of Registered Unrecognized Political Parties (RUPPs) of Ahmedabad. On verification of assessee’s return of income for A.Y. 2019-20, it was seen that for the year under consideration, the assessee had disclosed total income at Rs. 5,62,820/-. Further, in his return, deduction under Section 80GGC at Rs. 1,17,500/-, towards donation to Yuva Jan Jagruti Party was claimed which was concluded to be bogus in the light of investigations conducted by the Investigation Wing Ahmedabad post search operation dated 07.09.2022 and accordingly assessee’s case was re-opened. After conducting enquiries, the Ld. AO came to the conclusion that the claim of deduction under Section 80GGC of Rs. 1,17,500/- on account of donation by the assessee to Yuva Jan Jagruti Party was disallowed and the amount of Rs. 1,17,500/- was added back to the taxable income of the assessee.

4.

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

5.

There is a delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed condonation of delay along with Affidavit. The reasons stated by the assessee appears to be genuine, hence, the delay is condoned.

6.

The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee through his proper means has given the donation and has given the details of receipt of donation to the

ITA No. 2436/Ahd/2025 Alkeshkumar Lalbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year–2019-20 - 3 - political party, bank statement reflecting the transaction and copy of Income Tax Return and computation of income showing the deduction of claim.

7.

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

8.

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has given the selected bank statement and the details upon which the same has to be verified related to the gross entry was not at all examined by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, this issue needs to be verified. Hence, it will be appropriate to remand back this issue to the file of the AO for taking cognizance of these details and adjudicate the same as per Income Tax Act. Needless to say the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 19/05/2026 Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 19/05/2026 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, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 139

All 3,629 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →