NIKUNJ AJITKUMAR JANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO WARD 5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 487/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 June 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was valid. However, it found that the Assessing Officer had not properly verified the details of the donation and subsequent cash receipts. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80GGC for a donation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to a political party. The Assessing Officer reopened the case based on information from a search on the political party, which indicated it was involved in a bogus donation scam and ineligible for exemptions.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was valid and whether the donation claimed under Section 80GGC was genuine, requiring proper verification of financial transactions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80GGC,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 13A,Section 132,Section 29C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD ‘SMC’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Chintan Thakker, AR, Shri Saresa Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ‘SMC’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.487/AHD/2026 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(2), Mr. Nikunj Ajitkumar Jani, A 301, Ganesh Skyline, Income Tax Office, Behind Sayona Tilak 3 Vejalpur, Vs. Nirnaynagar S.O., Gujarat Ahmedabad City, Gujarat PAN: AHTPJ6113F (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Chintan Thakker, AR : Shri Saresa Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr. DR Respondent by Date of Hearing : 16.04.2026 : 19.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J M: The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short “CIT(A)”] dated 26.12.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2019-20.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in completing the reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144B, which is bad in law, without valid assumption of jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed. 2. The learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the deduction of ₹1,00,000/- claimed under section 80GGC, despite the appellant having fulfilled all statutory conditions prescribed under the Act. 3. The learned Assessing Officer erred in law in treating the donation as bogus without bringing on record any incriminating material or evidence to prove that the donation amount was returned to the appellant, either in cash or in any other manner.

ITA No.487/AHD/2026 Mr. Nikunj Ajitkumar Jani

4.

The impugned addition is based solely on third-party statements, general investigation reports and presumptions, which were never confronted to the appellant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 5. The learned Assessing Officer erred in shifting an impossible and excessive burden on the appellant, requiring him to prove facts which were beyond his control, despite the appellant having discharged his primary onus by furnishing documentary evidence. 6. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof, and therefore the disallowance made is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 7. The addition of ₹1,00,000/- is arbitrary, unjustified and contrary to the settled principles of law, and deserves to be deleted in full. 8. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. The assessee is an individual having salaried income and filed his return of income u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) on 29.08.2019 for A.Y. 2019-20declaring total income of Rs.9,85,290/-. As per the information, the Assessing Officer (in short “the AO”) observed that the assessee made donation of Rs.1,00,000/- to Yuva Janjagriti Party and claimed deduction u/s 80GGC of the Act for the donation, in the return of income for the A.Y. 2019-20. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted by the DDIT (Investigation) Wing, Ahmedabad on 07.09.2022 on various registered unrecognized political parties including Yuva Janjagriti Party. It was found that the said political party is involved in bogus donation scam. Thus, the assessee’s case was reopened and accordingly show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was issued, which was replied by the assessee and JAO passed order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 22.04.2023. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 22.04.2023. The Assessing Officer (in short “the AO”) further observed that the said political party did not file the contribution report to the Hon’ble Election Commission of India as prescribed in section 29C of Representation of People Act, 1951 for the financial years 2017-18 & 2018-19, thus becoming ineligible to claim exemption u/s 13A of the Act. The assessee filed return of income, in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act on 19.06.2023

ITA No.487/AHD/2026 Mr. Nikunj Ajitkumar Jani thereby declaring total income of Rs.9,85,290/- and claimed deduction u/s 80GGC of the Act for the donation of Rs.1,00,000/- made to Yuva Janjagriti Party. Statutory notices were issued and the same were responded by the assessee. After considering the assessee’s reply, the AO made addition of Rs.1,00,000/- thereby disallowing donation claimed u/s 80GGC of the Act.

4.

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

5.

The Ld. Authorised Representative (in short “Ld. AR”) for the assessee submitted that the assessee has rightly donated and claimed the deduction u/s 80GGC of the Act. The political party is a registered party and therefore the receipt of donation issued by the political party including its PAN, address and acknowledgement along with the assessee’s bank statement reflecting the transaction as well as copy of Income Tax Return and computation of income showing the deduction claimed was very well before the AO. The assessee was not at all involved in any bogus activities as alleged by the AO.

6.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (in short “Ld. DR”) for the Revenue relied upon the assessment order and the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

7.

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that as regards to ground No.1, the reopening u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act was rightly invoked as the information as well as the details of search conducted at the said political party has also reflected the donation given by the assessee and in fact the assessee, at later stage after the inquiry during assessment proceedings, has accepted that the assessee made the donation to the said political party. Thus, ground No.1 is dismissed.

8.

Now coming to the merits of the case, the assessee has given the details of bank statements along with donation receipts as well as the details of political party. From the perusal of the assessment order, it appears that the details of the bank statements were not properly verified by the AO in respect

ITA No.487/AHD/2026 Mr. Nikunj Ajitkumar Jani of the subsequent receipt of the said amount or the details of prior receipt of any cash. Thus, details require verification. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the file of the AO for proper verification of these details and for adjudication of the issue on merit as per Income Tax Act. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.

9.

In result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.06.2026

Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated: 19.06.2026 * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. Guard File By order,

Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS/PS ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench

More judgments on Section 80GGC

All 195 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80GGC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →