HIREN HARDASBHAI KARAMTA,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD 4, VERAVAL, VERAVAL

ITA 763/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 September 2026AY 2019-206 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had produced certain material documents for the first time before the appellate authority, including an extract of the list of political parties issued by the Election Commission of India dated 15.05.2023, Notification No. 56/2022, and the list of political parties that participated in the General Election, 2019. These documents were admittedly not furnished before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal observed that the evidentiary value and factual implications of these documents required verification. In the interest of substantial justice and to provide an effective opportunity to the Assessing Officer, the additional evidence was admitted for the limited purpose of verification under Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Consequently, the issue was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer on the aforesaid documents, afford adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and thereafter adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Hiren Hardasbhai Karamta, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench, for Assessment Year 2019-20. The appeal challenges an order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (Ld. CIT(A)), which upheld the Assessing Officer's (AO) disallowance of a Rs. 10,00,000/- deduction claimed under Section 80GGC. The AO's order, dated 27.12.2024, was passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had claimed the deduction for a donation made to the Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (secular). The AO disallowed the deduction, citing information that this political party was involved in providing accommodation entries for bogus donations, routing them through intermediaries, and returning the funds to donors after charging a commission. The assessee's appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts by upholding the disallowance of deduction under Section 80GGC of Rs. 10,00,000/-, despite the assessee discharging the initial onus and complying with statutory conditions (turning on Section 80GGC)? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A)'s upholding of the assessment order is legally untenable, given the assessee discharged the primary onus to prove the genuineness of the transaction (turning on Section 80GGC)? 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts by upholding the disallowance based on borrowed satisfaction and circumstantial material, without establishing a direct nexus or flow-back of funds to the assessee (turning on Section 80GGC)? 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts by misapplying the principles of probability and citing irrelevant judgments to disallow the deduction, despite the assessee discharging the initial onus and furnishing credible documentary evidence (turning on Section 80GGC)? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the donation was made to an active political party through banking channels, and therefore, the addition made by the AO should be deleted. The assessee also contended that it had discharged the initial onus and complied with all statutory conditions for the deduction. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through the Ld. DR, opposed the assessee's prayer for condonation of delay. Subsequently, the revenue argued that the assessee submitted additional evidence for the first time before the Tribunal, which was not provided to the AO. These included an extract of the list of political parties from the Election Commission of India and a notification. The revenue requested that the matter be remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) to obtain a remand report from the AO regarding these additional evidences.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80GGC,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 13A,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 139(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Om Kanabar. Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. SR DR
Hearing: 29/07/2026

Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2019-20, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 30.12.2025 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short ‘AO’) u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act dated 27.12.2024. 2. Whe

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 80GGC

All 195 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80GGC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →