My s.148 reassessment started over a political donation but the Assessing Officer has disallowed my 80D and 80DDB for my parents' medical expenses as well. Are those safe?
On this order the s.80D claim of Rs 75,000 for health insurance premium and medical expenditure incurred for the assessee's parents was allowed outright, the Tribunal holding the disallowance unjustified because the expenditure was incurred for his parents and is deductible under s.80D. The s.80DDB claim of Rs 87,000 for a father diagnosed with cancer was NOT allowed: it went back to the Assessing Officer because eleven documents called for had never been produced either before him or before the CIT(A).
Decided by the ITAT (Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member (SMC Bench)) on 2026-05-15, reported as ITA No. 2327/AHD/2025 (ITAT Ahmedabad 'SMC' Bench); Assessment Year 2019-20; heard 16 March 2026. It bears on section 80D, section 80DDB, section 80DD, section 80C, section 80GGC, section 10(5), section 147, section 148A, section 144B, section 234C, section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Deductions & Disallowances, Salary & Perquisites, Reassessment & Reopening and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters.
The contrast between the two grounds is the whole practical lesson. Section 80D turned on a relationship and a payment the Tribunal could see; s.80DDB turned on a specific documentary trail — under Rule 11DD a prescription from a specialist in the prescribed form for a specified disease — and without that trail the claim could not be allowed even though the disease, cancer, is plainly a specified one and even though the Tribunal accepted the assessee's description of it. Note also that this is a reassessment opened on one item, a donation to a Registered Unrecognised Political Party under s.80GGC, that became a disallowance of Rs 7,92,000 across the entire Chapter VI-A block plus the s.10(5) leave travel exemption. That pattern is now routine and every head has to be defended separately. And the whole of it is old-regime relief: none of s.80C, s.80D, s.80DD, s.80DDB, s.80GGC or the s.10(5) exemption survives s.115BAC, the default from AY 2024-25.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee filed a return for assessment year 2019-20 under s.139(1) showing total income of Rs 16,95,590 and revised it under s.139(5) on 24 October 2019. The gross total income comprised salary (computed) of Rs 26,81,353, interest on bank fixed deposits of Rs 31,232 and a loss under the head house property of Rs 2,00,000 relating to a self-occupied property. The Chapter VI-A claim was s.80C Rs 1,50,000, s.80D (mediclaim) Rs 75,000, s.80DD Rs 1,05,000, s.80DDB (medical treatment of specified diseases) Rs 87,000 and s.80GGC (donation to political parties) Rs 4,00,000. The case was reopened by a notice under s.148A on 29 March 2023 directed at a donation of Rs 4,00,000 to Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular), which the department treated as a Registered Unrecognised Political Party; an order under s.148A and a notice under s.148 followed on 12 April 2023. By an order under s.147 read with s.144B dated 11 March 2025 the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs 7,92,000 of deductions and exemptions, assessing income at Rs 24,87,590 with tax payable of Rs 7,50,754. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal by order dated 29 October 2025. Before the Tribunal the s.80DDB claim was said to relate to the assessee's father, who had been diagnosed with cancer, a specified disease under Rule 11DD, and the s.80D claim to health insurance premium and medical expenditure incurred for his parents.
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. On the s.80D claim of Rs 75,000 the Tribunal held that the assessee had incurred the medical expenditure for his parents and that the same is an allowable deduction, so that the Assessing Officer's disallowance was not justified, and allowed that ground outright (para 12). On the s.80DDB claim of Rs 87,000 the Tribunal recorded that the Assessing Officer had called for details of eleven documents which were furnished neither before him nor before the CIT(A), and remanded the matter for proper verification and adjudication, directing that the assessee be heard (para 9). The s.80GGC ground was likewise remanded, the assessee not having given details of the bank statement for the period after the donations and the Assessing Officer not having verified the matter properly (para 7).
The Tribunal drew a line between a claim it could decide on the material before it and one it could not. On s.80D the Assessing Officer's objection was to the fact of the expenditure; the Tribunal took it as established that the expenditure was incurred on the health of the assessee's parents and, that being so, treated the statutory entitlement as following automatically, so that the disallowance had no basis. On s.80DDB it did not doubt that cancer is a specified disease under Rule 11DD or that the father suffered from it; the difficulty was that the Assessing Officer had made a specific requisition for eleven documents which was never answered at either stage, so there was no material on which the Tribunal could itself allow the claim and the only course open was verification by the Assessing Officer after hearing the assessee. The same logic disposed of the s.80GGC ground, where the missing item was the bank statement for the period following the donation, needed to test whether the money had come back.
It is pertinent to note that the assessee has incurred the medical expenditure for his parents and the same is allowable deduction under Section 80(2) therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not justified.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppOn this order the s.80D claim of Rs 75,000 for health insurance premium and medical expenditure incurred for the assessee's parents was allowed outright, the Tribunal holding the disallowance unjustified because the expenditure was incurred for his parents and is deductible under s.80D. The s.80DDB claim of Rs 87,000 for a father diagnosed with cancer was NOT allowed: it went back to the Assessing Officer because eleven documents called for had never been produced either before him or before the CIT(A). This was decided by the ITAT (Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member (SMC Bench)) and bears on section 80D, section 80DDB, section 80DD, section 80C, section 80GGC, section 10(5), section 147, section 148A, section 144B, section 234C, section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 2327/AHD/2025 (ITAT Ahmedabad 'SMC' Bench); Assessment Year 2019-20; heard 16 March 2026. The contrast between the two grounds is the whole practical lesson. Section 80D turned on a relationship and a payment the Tribunal could see; s.80DDB turned on a specific documentary trail — under Rule 11DD a prescription from a specialist in the prescribed form for a specified disease — and without that trail the claim could not be allowed even though the disease, cancer, is plainly a specified one and even though the Tribunal accepted the assessee's description of it. Note also that this is a reassessment opened on one item, a donation to a Registered Unrecognised Political Party under s.80GGC, that became a disallowance of Rs 7,92,000 across the entire Chapter VI-A block plus the s.10(5) leave travel exemption. That pattern is now routine and every head has to be defended separately. And the whole of it is old-regime relief: none of s.80C, s.80D, s.80DD, s.80DDB, s.80GGC or the s.10(5) exemption survives s.115BAC, the default from AY 2024-25. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Separate the s.80D claim into its limbs and prove each: premium paid for the assessee and family, premium paid for parents, and — where the parent is a senior citizen with no insurance in force — medical expenditure under s.80D(2)(d), which is capped at Rs 50,000 and cannot be paid in cash.
The assessee filed a return for assessment year 2019-20 under s.139(1) showing total income of Rs 16,95,590 and revised it under s.139(5) on 24 October 2019. The gross total income comprised salary (computed) of Rs 26,81,353, interest on bank fixed deposits of Rs 31,232 and a loss under the head house property of Rs 2,00,000 relating to a self-occupied property. The Chapter VI-A claim was s.80C Rs 1,50,000, s.80D (mediclaim) Rs 75,000, s.80DD Rs 1,05,000, s.80DDB (medical treatment of specified diseases) Rs 87,000 and s.80GGC (donation to political parties) Rs 4,00,000. The case was reopened by a notice under s.148A on 29 March 2023 directed at a donation of Rs 4,00,000 to Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular), which the department treated as a Registered Unrecognised Political Party; an order under s.148A and a notice under s.148 followed on 12 April 2023. By an order under s.147 read with s.144B dated 11 March 2025 the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs 7,92,000 of deductions and exemptions, assessing income at Rs 24,87,590 with tax payable of Rs 7,50,754. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal by order dated 29 October 2025. Before the Tribunal the s.80DDB claim was said to relate to the assessee's father, who had been diagnosed with cancer, a specified disease under Rule 11DD, and the s.80D claim to health insurance premium and medical expenditure incurred for his parents. The matter was decided on 2026-05-15 by the ITAT (Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member (SMC Bench)). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. On the s.80D claim of Rs 75,000 the Tribunal held that the assessee had incurred the medical expenditure for his parents and that the same is an allowable deduction, so that the Assessing Officer's disallowance was not justified, and allowed that ground outright (para 12). On the s.80DDB claim of Rs 87,000 the Tribunal recorded that the Assessing Officer had called for details of eleven documents which were furnished neither before him nor before the CIT(A), and remanded the matter for proper verification and adjudication, directing that the assessee be heard (para 9). The s.80GGC ground was likewise remanded, the assessee not having given details of the bank statement for the period after the donations and the Assessing Officer not having verified the matter properly (para 7).
The Tribunal drew a line between a claim it could decide on the material before it and one it could not. On s.80D the Assessing Officer's objection was to the fact of the expenditure; the Tribunal took it as established that the expenditure was incurred on the health of the assessee's parents and, that being so, treated the statutory entitlement as following automatically, so that the disallowance had no basis. On s.80DDB it did not doubt that cancer is a specified disease under Rule 11DD or that the father suffered from it; the difficulty was that the Assessing Officer had made a specific requisition for eleven documents which was never answered at either stage, so there was no material on which the Tribunal could itself allow the claim and the only course open was verification by the Assessing Officer after hearing the assessee. The same logic disposed of the s.80GGC ground, where the missing item was the bank statement for the period following the donation, needed to test whether the money had come back. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "It is pertinent to note that the assessee has incurred the medical expenditure for his parents and the same is allowable deduction under Section 80(2) therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not justified."
It was decided by the ITAT on 2026-05-15 and is reported as ITA No. 2327/AHD/2025 (ITAT Ahmedabad 'SMC' Bench); Assessment Year 2019-20; heard 16 March 2026. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 80D, section 80DDB, section 80DD, section 80C, section 80GGC, section 10(5), section 147, section 148A, section 144B, section 234C, section 115BAC, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It cuts both ways and is cited by both sides. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. On the s.80D claim of Rs 75,000 the Tribunal held that the assessee had incurred the medical expenditure for his parents and that the same is an allowable deduction, so that the Assessing Officer's disallowance was not justified, and allowed that ground outright (para 12). On the s.80DDB claim of Rs 87,000 the Tribunal recorded that the Assessing Officer had called for details of eleven documents which were furnished neither before him nor before the CIT(A), and remanded the matter for proper verification and adjudication, directing that the assessee be heard (para 9). The s.80GGC ground was likewise remanded, the assessee not having given details of the bank statement for the period after the donations and the Assessing Officer not having verified the matter properly (para 7). It arises in Deductions & Disallowances, Salary & Perquisites, Reassessment & Reopening and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters, on section 80D, section 80DDB, section 80DD, section 80C, section 80GGC, section 10(5), section 147, section 148A, section 144B, section 234C, section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member (SMC Bench). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. For s.80DDB assemble the Rule 11DD prescription from the prescribed specialist before the appeal is heard, with the patient's name and age, the name of the disease and the specialist's registration number and qualification; a doctor's letter or hospital bills alone will not do, and here the absence of the called-for documents cost the assessee a remand. Where the AO has issued a list of documents and the list was not answered, say so and ask for the remand on terms rather than pressing for outright allowance — the Tribunal here remanded on exactly that footing. Take the s.80GGC ground on the statutory text: s.80GGC requires the donee to be a political party registered under s.29A of the Representation of the People Act 1951, and non-recognition by the Election Commission is not a statutory disqualification — but be ready to show the bank statements for the period after the donation, the absence of which caused the remand here. Check the regime before any of this: from AY 2024-25 none of these deductions is available under s.115BAC unless Form 10-IEA opting out was filed within the s.139(1) due date.
Validity check could not be completed. Validity check could not be completed. The order was pronounced on 15 May 2026 and no search for later treatment was carried out. The retrieval of the order was partial: see the editor note for which paragraphs were read verbatim and which were not. The s.115BAC point is not from this order but from the Income Tax Department's page for that section. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The operative sentence on s.80D says the medical expenditure for the parents "is allowable deduction under Section 80(2)": there is no s.80(2) in point and this is a slip for s.80D(2). The quote has been reproduced exactly as printed rather than corrected. The retrieval was uneven. The paragraphs on grounds 2 and 3 and the operative paragraph came back as a clean verbatim transcription, as did the itemised breakdown of the gross total income and the Chapter VI-A claim; but two attempts to obtain paragraphs 2 to 6 verbatim returned a reformatted rendering rather than the court's own words, so the procedural history in the facts above — the s.148A notice of 29 March 2023, the s.148A order of 12 April 2023, the s.147 read with s.144B order of 11 March 2025 and the NFAC order of 29 October 2025 — is reported from that rendering and has not been confirmed word for word. The final paragraph is numbered 21 although the discussion visible runs only to the low teens, so paragraphs are missing from what could be read; the treatment of the s.80DD claim of Rs 1,05,000 and of the s.10(5) claim of Rs 1,25,000 was not among the text retrieved. The s.80D(2)(d) and Rule 11DD descriptions in this entry are statements of the statute and rules, taken from the Income Tax Department's own section page, and are not findings in this order. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. On the s.80D claim of Rs 75,000 the Tribunal held that the assessee had incurred the medical expenditure for his parents and that the same is an allowable deduction, so that the Assessing Officer's disallowance was not justified, and allowed that ground outright (para 12). On the s.80DDB claim of Rs 87,000 the Tribunal recorded that the Assessing Officer had called for details of eleven documents which were furnished neither before him nor before the CIT(A), and remanded the matter for proper verification and adjudication, directing that the assessee be heard (para 9). The s.80GGC ground was likewise remanded, the assessee not having given details of the bank statement for the period after the donations and the Assessing Officer not having verified the matter properly (para 7).
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
How much am I actually required to disclose — and can they reopen because the officer drew the wrong conclusion?
The sanctioning authority just wrote 'yes' and signed. Is that a sanction?
A reassessment was done in between. Does the two-year clock for s.263 restart from it?