HARESHKUMAR RATANSHI BARAI,JAM-KHAMBHALIA vs. ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME-TAX OFFICER, DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1312/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 October 2026AY 2024-254 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Ashish Dubey vs. ACIT (ITA No. 222/Del/2020). In that case, the Tribunal had observed that once the assessee established, on the basis of material evidence, the fact of payment of donation and the receipt acknowledged to the assessee, the mere fact that the political party failed to account for the donation received did not fault the assessee as a donor, thereby denying the deduction. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided a copy of the donation receipt, the PAN of the political party, its registration under section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, its ITR, and confirmation by email. Bank statements corroborated the donations made through banking channels. The Tribunal found no reason to take a different view, as there was no change in facts and law, and the Revenue could not produce any materials to controvert the findings in Ashish Dubey. The Tribunal also referred to a similar decision in ITAT Rajkot in the case of Nihil Nitinbhai Bhuptani (ITA No.479/RJT/2025). Therefore, respectfully following the binding precedent, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Hareshkumar Ratanshi Barai, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2024-25. The impugned order upheld an addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition pertained to a deduction claimed under section 80GGC. The assessee contended that the assessment proceedings were void ab initio and that the addition was unjustified. The assessee also argued that the CIT(A) failed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard. The appeal was filed against an order passed under section 250 of the Act, which arose from an order passed by the AO on 20.01.2026.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment proceedings initiated and the consequent assessment order are void ab initio, invalid, and bad in law, and liable to be quashed and set aside, considering the alleged lack of proper appreciation of facts, submissions, and material on record by the AO and CIT(A)? 2. Whether the disallowance/addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- in respect of deduction claimed under section 80GGC of the Act is justified, or if it is excessive and liable to be deleted due to lack of proper appreciation of facts, evidence, and submissions? 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without properly considering the submissions and evidence, and whether the appeal was disposed of without adequate and effective opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice? Assessee's Contentions: - The assessment proceedings are void ab initio. - The addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- under section 80GGC is unjustified and liable to be deleted. - The donation was made to a political party through banking channels, and the donor should not be held responsible for any irregularities by the political party. - The license of the political party was effective at the time of donation. - The assessee is not engaged in providing accommodation entries. - The present appeal is covered by the Tribunal's decision in Ashish Dubey vs. ACIT (ITA No. 222/Del/2020). - The CIT(A) failed to provide an adequate and effective opportunity of being heard, and the AO also failed to grant such an opportunity during assessment proceedings, violating principles of natural justice. Revenue's Contentions: - The Ld. DR relied on the findings of the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80GGC,Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 29A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 22/10/2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट �यायपीठ, राजकोट। In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Rajkot Bench, Rajkot Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1312/RJT/2026 [ िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2024-25 ] Hareshkumar Ratanshi Barai, Additional/Joint/Deputy Mahesh N. Paun, /Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Advocate, Taxation Consultant Income Tax/Income-Tax Shreeji Chambers, 17-Nava Para, Near Officer, National Faceless S.B.I. (ADB), Jam-Khambhaliya, Assessment Centre, Gujarat-361305 Delhi-110003 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACNPB2936P (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Mahesh Paun, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22/10/2026 28/10/2026 Date of Pronouncement :

: ORDER : Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2024-15, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, dated 18.08.2026, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, on 20.01.2026. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1.Learned A.O. erred in law as well as on facts by initiating proceedings, which is void ab initio, invalid and bad in law. Learned Commissioner of Appeals (NFAC) further erred by not confirming the same without proper appreciating the facts, submission and material available on record. The assessment proceeding and the consequent assessment order being erroneous in law and on facts and are liable to be quashed and set aside. 2.Learned Commissioner of (Appeals) (NFAC) further erred in confirming the disallowance/addition of Rs.6,00,000/- in respect of deduction claimed under section 80GGC of the Act. The addition has been imposed without proper appreciation of the facts, evidence and submission furnished by appellant and is therefore unjustified, excessive and liable to be deleted. 3.Learned Commissioner of Appeals (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition without properly considering the submissions and evidence furnished by your appellant. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) further erred in not providing adequate and effective opportunity of being heard and in disposing appeal without consideration of appellant's contentions. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) also failed to appreciate that adequate and effective opportunity of being heard was not granted by Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings. The orders of authorities below are therefore violating the principles of natural justice and deserved to be quashed. 4.Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify or withdraw any ground of appeals and prayer at or before the time of hearing.

3.When this appeal was called out for hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee invited my contention to the order dated 08.05.2024 passed by the Division Bench of Tribunal in the case of Ashish Dubey vs. ACIT in ITA No. 222/Del/2020 for A.Y. 2015-16, wherein donation was made to political party through banking channel and the certificate of the political party was effective, therefore, addition made by the assessing officer should be deleted. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that donation was given to the political party through banking channel and donor is not supposed to know, whether the licence of political party was effective or not. In respect of irregularity done by the political party, the assessee should not be held responsible. At the time of giving donation, the licence of political party was effective and the assessee is not engaged in providing the accommodation entries, therefore addition made by the Assessing Officer may be deleted. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the present appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, a copy of which was also placed before the Bench.

4.On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the findings of the Assessing Officer.

5.

I see no reason to take any other view of the matter, then the view so taken by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ashish Dubey (supra), vide order dated 08.05.2024 in this order, the Tribunal has inter alia observed as follows: “4. Appreciating the material on record it comes up that at page no. 5 of the paper book assesse has provided a copy of receipt of donation issued by Rashtriya Komi Ekta Party. PAN of Rashtriya Komi Ekta Party is made available at page no. 6, which is similar to one mentioned on the receipt. Further, at page nos. 7 & 8 assessee has provided a copy of letter dated 19.01.2001 from Election Commission of India, which recognizes Rashtriya Komi Ekta Party as a political party registered u/s 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. A copy of ITR of Rashtriya Komi Ekta Party for relevant assessment year 2015-16 is provided at page no. 9. The assessee has also provided a copy of confirmation by way of email dated 19.12.2017 from Rashtriya Komi Ekta Party at page nos. 10 & 11 of the paper book. The extract of assessee’s bank statement, available at pages 12-22 of the paper book, corroborates the fact of donations being made to the said political party by banking channel and corresponds to the details mentioned in the receipt issued by the said political party as made available at page 5 of the paper book. However, this evidence is discredited by the tax authorities below on the basis that the said political party has not shown the donation in its return of income. The order of learned CIT(A) shows that aforesaid evidences were found to substantiate that assessee had paid donation to the registered political party. We are of the considered view that once the assessee had established, on the basis of material evidences, the fact of payment of the donation and the receipt acknowledged to the assessee then the mere fact that the political party on its part has failed to account for the donation received, the assessee as a donor cannot be faulted so as to deny the deduction. Grounds raised are sustained. Appeal of assessee is allowed with consequential effect.”

6.

As the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Ashish Dubey (supra), and there is no change in facts and law and the Revenue is unable to produce any materials to controvert the aforesaid findings of the Co-ordinate Bench in case of Ashish Dubey (supra).The said issue is also covered by the decision of ITAT Rajkot in the case of Nihil Nitinbhai Bhuptani, in ITA No.479/RJT/2025.Therefore, I respectfully following the binding precedent of the Co-ordinate Bench in case of Ashish Dubey (supra), I, delete the addition made by the assessing officer.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order is pronounced in the open Court on 28/10/2026.

Sd/- [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/Date: 28/10/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to :  The assessee  The Respondent  The CIT  The CIT(A)  DR, ITAT, RAJKOT  By order Guard File

Private Secretary ITAT, Rajkot

Page 4 of 4

More judgments on Section 80GGC

All 195 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80GGC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →