MAZHARKHAN NASRULLAHKHAN PATHAN,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2342/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 October 2026AY 2024-253 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the claim under section 80GGC was covered by its own prior order in the case of Saurabh Pravinbhai Patel Vs. ITO (ITA No.1017/Ahd/2023), which upheld the disallowance under section 80GGC based on investigation material, bank trail, and the modus operandi of the recipient political party. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues had been adjudicated by co-ordinate benches in other cases, including Mihir Bipinbhai Parekh Vs. DCIT, Milind Pankajbhai Shroff Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Ritesh Sugan Jain Vs. ITO, and Rajen Jayantilal Merchant Vs. ITO. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) affirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mazharkhan Nasrullahkhan Pathan, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2024-25. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed a deduction of ₹8,50,000 claimed under section 80GGC. This disallowance was based on the AO's finding that the political party to which the donation was made was allegedly involved in bogus donation transactions, as indicated by search operations and recorded statements. The AO added this amount to the assessee's total income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal. During the ITAT hearing, none appeared for the assessee, and the appeal was decided based on available records.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed under section 143(3) and confirmed by the first appellate authority under section 250 is bad in law and uncalled for? 2. Whether the Assessing Officer and the appellate authority erred in making and confirming, respectively, the addition of ₹8,50,000, and whether the same deserves to be deleted? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the assessment order and the appellate order were bad in law and should be quashed. The assessee also contended that the addition of ₹8,50,000 was erroneous and should be deleted. The assessee reserved the right to amend grounds of appeal. Revenue's Contentions: No specific contentions were recorded for the revenue, other than the respondent being represented by the Sr. DR. The judgment proceeds to adjudicate on merits based on the material on record and the AO's findings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80GGC,Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-

For Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.10.2026Pronounced: 21.10.2026

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:

- The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order dated 30.04.2026, under section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2024-25. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

The assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the first appellate authority bu/s.250 is bad in law and deserved to be uncalled for.

2.

The assessing officer and appellate authority ha

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 →