SARIKA RAVKA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J(SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2507/Mum/2026 (Assessment year: 2019-20)

Sarika Ravka vs ITO Ward 41(2)(5), Mumbai 1302-1303, Ratnashree Tower Maharashtra-400051 1, Hari Om Nagar, Mulund east, Mumbai-400081 PAN: ADNPK8054G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Manish Jain, CA Revenue by : Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR) Date of hearing : 11/06/2026 Date of pronouncement : 22/06/2026 O R D E R Per:Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2019-20, date of order 19.12.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit Income Tax Department (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, date of order 05.03.2025.

2 ITA No.2507/Mum/2026 SARIKA RAVKA 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return by declaring the total income Rs.18,19,510/-. The assessee has donated Rs.5 lakhs to the political party named Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular) [in short, ‘RUPP’] and claimed 100% exemption u/sec. 80GGC from total income. The Ld. AO received the report from Investigation wing that a search proceeding is initiated against the political party Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular) viz. RUPP. It was also noted that the those RUPP was involved in a scam where the donations were collected from interested parties so that they could claim deduction at the rate of 100% u/sec. 80GGC and thereby reduce the tax liability. And these donations were ultimately return to the donors mainly in cash and sometimes through banking channels after deduction some commission at the rate of 1.5 to 2.5%. Considering this the Ld. AO treated the entire donations amount to Rs.5 lakhs as bogus and added back with the total income of the assessee. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay for 5 days. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitation and uphold the addition. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. The Ld. AR argued and contended that the appeal was duly rejected in limine on the ground of limitation. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the delay for 5 days in filing appeal. In argument on merit the Ld. AR contended that the donations to the political party RUPP is no longer res integra the issue is squarely covered by the order of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Vishakhapatnam in the case of Deepak Mittal Vijayawada vs ACIT ITA No.393/Vizag/2014 where the ITAT has considered the assessee’s plea and allowed the appeal of the assessee related to the donations to JOGO Party by way of cheque. The Ld. AR prayed for delete the addition made by the Ld. AO.

3 ITA No.2507/Mum/2026 SARIKA RAVKA 4. The Ld. DR argued and stated that the revenue has made the investigation and found that the political party named RUPP and Apna Desh Party where such party which involved in making available such sham transaction and colorable device to which the assessee had also donated Rs.5 lakhs to RUPP and had claimed deduction u/sec. 80GGC during filing of return u/sec. 139(1) of the Act. The entire transaction is a colorable device for duly avoidance of tax. The Ld. DR supported the orders of the revenue authorities and contended that the assessee had filed the appeal with a delay and no proper explanation for condoning the delay was filed before the Ld. CIT(A). It was argued that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly rejected the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation. Accordingly, the Ld. DR prayed that the impugned appellate order be upheld. 5. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The assessee filed the return u/sec. 139(1) and claimed the deduction 80GGC amount to Rs.5 lakhs. The assessee had donated Rs.5 lakhs to the political party RUPP so assessee was eligible to get the deduction u/sec. 80GGC at the rate of 100%. The Ld. AO relied on the report of the Investigation Department treated the entire transaction as a sham transaction and taken that the assessee is donated the amount only for tax avoidance and the cash was duly returned to the assessee. The assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 5 days. The Ld. AR stated that there is an ordinary delay for 5 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It is noted that the assessee had not filed any petition for seeking the condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A). In absence of valid prayer the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of

4 ITA No.2507/Mum/2026 SARIKA RAVKA substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to file the affidavit along with an appropriate application seeking condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the assessee’s application for condonation of delay in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions involved in the case, and the Ld. CIT(A) shall adjudicate the matter independently and uninfluenced by any observations contained herein. Needless to state, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing in the set-aside appellate proceedings and shall be permitted to place all relevant documents and evidence on record. At the same time, the assessee is directed to remain diligent and extend full cooperation to ensure the expeditious disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.2507/Mum/2026 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd day of June 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 22/06/2026 SAUMYASr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 1.

5 ITA No.2507/Mum/2026 SARIKA RAVKA 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु� CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI