MUKESHBHAI GOVINDBHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1897/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 October 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The issue regarding the claim under Section 80GGC was found to be covered by the Tribunal's own order in the case of Saurabh Pravinbhai Patel Vs. ITO (ITA No.1017/Ahd/2023), dated 30.04.2025. In that case, the disallowance under Section 80GGC was upheld based on investigation material, bank trail, and the modus operandi of the recipient political party. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues were 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. Therefore, 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.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mukeshbhai Govindbhai Prajapati, filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2019-20. The assessee initially filed a return under Section 139(1) declaring a total income of Rs. 16,03,750/-, including a deduction of Rs. 2,51,000/- under Chapter VI-A, specifically Section 80GGC for donations to a political party. Subsequently, a return under Section 148 was filed. The Assessing Officer disallowed the Rs. 2,51,000/- deduction under Section 80GGC. The assessee's appeal to the NFAC was dismissed. The appeal before the ITAT was filed by the assessee, but no one appeared on their behalf during the hearing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, 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 the addition of Rs. 2,51,000/-, and whether this amount deserves to be deleted? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the assessment order and the confirmation by the appellate authority were bad in law. The assessee also contended that the addition of Rs. 2,51,000/- was erroneous and should be deleted. The assessee reserved the right to amend grounds during the hearing. Revenue's Contentions: No specific contentions were recorded for the revenue, other than the fact that the respondent was represented by Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DR.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 143(1),Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 250,Section 80GGC

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: 21.10.2026Pronounced: 22.10.2026

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

-

The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi vide order dated 17.03.2026. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2019-20. ITA No.1897 /Ahd/2026 Asst. Year :(2019-20 ) - 2–

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

2.1.

The assessment order passed u/s 147 of Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the first appellate authority u/s 250 is bad in law and deserved to be uncalled for.

2.

The assessing officer an

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 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →