PRASHANT JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(2)(1), NOIDA, NOIDA

Delay of 74 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

It transpires at the outset during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities have refused section 80GGC deduction claim amounting to Rs.3 lakhs; in assessment order dated 13th February, 2025 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion as under: “5.1 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant had raised four grounds of appeal, which are centred around making disallowance of donation paid to RUPP of Rs. 3,00,000/- u/s 80GGC of the Act and addition of savings interest income of Rs. 1,651/-. Briefly, the appellant had filed ITR for the impugned AY 2019-20 declaring a total income of Rs. 26,51,070/- and claimed deduction of Rs. 3,00,000/- u/s 80GGC of the Act. The appellant’s case was reopened u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, statutory notices were issued during the course of assessment proceedings. The investigation wing of the department had unearthed the facts from the persons involved with the RSP that the party was not carrying out any political activities and was formed for the sole purpose of carrying out bogus donations scam. Hence, the AO had concluded the assessment proceedings by disallowing the bogus deduction claimed u/s 80GGC of the Act. 5.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant had furnished written submissions along with donation receipt, bank statement and other case laws relied upon. I have carefully considered the written submissions, assessment order and facts of the case. The appellant had paid an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to RSP and claimed deduction u/s 80GGC of the Act on donation paid to RSP. The enquiry conducted by the investigation wing of the department on the persons involved with RSP has revealed that there were no political activities conducted and they have only used bank account of the RSP to provide accommodation entries, where donation received by banking channels were layered through various bank accounts and ultimately cash was returned back. The Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad, Bench ‘B’ vide IT APPEAL NO. 1659 (AHD.) OF 2019 [2022] 142 taxmann.com 574 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) in the case of Pavan Anil Bakeri v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax had held that the donation given to RSP is bogus and hence the deduction claimed u/s 80GGC is disallowed. Therefore, I am of the view that the findings given by AO do not require 2 | P a g e any interference and the addition is sustained. Therefore, the grounds of appeal