SAURABH SAHU,GWALIOR vs. ITO-1(1), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

Brief facts of the case: The assessee filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs. 46,00,660/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income and declared total income at Rs. 43,90,660/-. The case was selected for scrutiny for verification of “Large deduction is claimed u/s. 80GGC (Old tax regime)”. The AO noted that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.5,00,000/- u/s. 80GGC of the Act on account of payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to Bharatiya Sant Mat Party. The AO on the basis of the material available before him found that the donation made to such party was fictitious and the amounts were routed back to the donor in cash after deducting commission. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80GGC of the Act on the payment of said Rs.5,00,000/-.

Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds of appeal : “1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in summarily dismissing the appeal without proper application of mind, by merely reproducing/echoing the Assessing Officer's findings and even the submissions made before the Assessing Officer, instead of independently considering and dealing with the detailed written submissions, rebuttal and evidences filed before him, thereby passing a non-speaking order in violation of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2 | P a g e

That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 1443 which is contrary to the material on record, provisions of the Act, unjust and bad in law. 3.1 That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making the impugned assessment merely on the basis of third-party statements and investigation/search material, and without providing an opportunity of cross-examination to the appellant despite his specific written request dated 05.02.2026. 3.2 That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Assessing Officer had committed gross violation of principles of natural justice by (i) not confronting the appellant with copies of all statements, documents and material collected behind his back and intended to be used against him, and (ii) not affording any opportunity of cross- examination of the persons whose statements formed the primary basis for the adverse inference, and that in such circumstances no adverse inference could validly be drawn against the appellant. 4. That, without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs.5,00,000/- claimed under section 80GGC of the Act towards donation made to Bhartiya Sant Mat Party, a political party duly registered under section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, even though the appellant had furnished complete documentary evidence including donation receipt, bank statement evidencing NEFT payment, PAN of the party, registration certificate under section 29A and audited financial statements of the party. 4. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance under section 80GGC of the Act on the basis that the said political party allegedly could not reply to notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act, without appreciating that non-response or procedural default of the donee cannot be a ground to deny a statutory deduction to the donor when the donor has discharged his onus by producing primary evidences of contribution and the party's registration. 5. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the deduction under section 80GGC of the Act is not allowable, even though all statutory conditions of section 80GGC stood satisfied. 3 | P a g e

That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C and the initiation of penalty proceedings, if any, which are merely consequential to the unsustainable disallowance under section 80GGC of the Act and therefore do not survive once the substantive addition is deleted. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.” 4. None was present on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called for hearing. The learned Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We notice from ground No. 1 of the appeal that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing a non-speaking order in violation of section 250(6) of the Act by not considering the detailed written submission and rebuttal of the evidence filed before the learned CIT(A). In this regard, the relevant extract of the order of the learned CIT(A) is reproduced as under : 6. Examination of the issue and decision: 6.1 During the course of the appellate proceedings, a detailed submission was filed by the assessee on 26/05/2026, the contentions raised by the assessee, along with the supporting documents submitted, have been thoroughly examined and carefully considered. Consequently, the findings recorded by the assessing officer in the impugned assessment order do not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity. The arguments. tendered by the appellant are not tenable and fail to rebut the conclusions drawn during the assessment. 6.2 In view of the above, I am of the considered view that no interference is called for to the impugned order passed u/s 143(3)