ASHISH KAMLESHKUMAR SHAH, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the reassessment proceedings are not tenable in law and therefore additions made be deleted. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding donation of Rs. 8,00,000/-made by the appellant to political party as non genuine and thereby confirming the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs.8,00,000/-. 2. That the various reason advance by leaned CIT(A) in considering donation of Rs.8,00,000/- as non genuine are contrary to the facts of the case and the evidence on records.

The assessee is an HUF and filed return of income for the A.Y. 2019-20 in ITR-1 on 23.10.2019 showing total income of Rs.18,93,550/-. The assessee claimed deduction amounting to Rs.13,00,000/- u/s 80GGC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) out of which an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was given to M/s. Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular). The Assessing Officer (in short “the AO”) observed that the assessee has shown it as a deduction and the said amount has escaped assessment related to donation. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 17.04.2023 after passing order u/s 148A(d) of the Act. The assessee filed return of income, in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act on 06.05.2023. Statutory notices were issued and the assessee submitted the details. After taking cognizance of the assessee’s reply and details the AO made addition of Rs.8,00,000/- thereby disallowing the deduction u/s 80GGC of the Act made to M/s. Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular) and held it as bogus deduction.

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

The Ld. Authorised Representative (in short “Ld. AR”) for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) was not right in upholding the disallowance of Rs.8,00,000/- made by the assessee to political party as non genuine. The assessee has discharged primary onus to prove the genuineness of the donation made to the said party and in fact the AO without giving opportunity to the assessee has solely relied on the general statement of the representative of the said political party. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Anuj Prakash Gupta (2026) 183 taxmann.com 392 (Raipur – Trib.) as well as Chirag 2 Bhikhabhai Patel vs. DCIT (ITA No.727/RJT/2025 order dated 12.01.2026).

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

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. From the perusal of the assessment order it appears that the AO should have called for the details about the source of the donations, though the assessee is stating that the assessee is having a sufficient balance for donating the said amount to the political party but the reason for such a political donation has not been confronted though doubted by the AO. Thus, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the AO for verifying the trial of the source of the amount which was donated as well as whether the said amount was at any point of time in subsequent date has been received by the assessee or not. Thus, after verifying the same, the AO is directed to adjudicate the matter as per the Income Tax Act. Needless to say the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.

In result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.06.2026

Guard File