The Assessing Officer has disallowed my s.80GGC deduction and, on top of that, added five per cent of the donation under s.69C read with s.115BBE as commission I am presumed to have paid. Will the Tribunal delete at least the commission?
Not necessarily. The Delhi Bench dismissed the appeal in its entirety, holding that where a search under s.132 on the recipient party produced sworn statements of the President and key office bearers admitting that donations received through banking channels were returned to donors in cash after deducting commission, the payment through NEFT and a valid donation receipt do not save the deduction. The order does not separately deal with the s.69C addition; it upholds the impugned order as a whole.
Decided by the ITAT (Shri Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member (SMC Bench)) on 2026-06-12, reported as ITA No. 1134/DEL/2026; Assessment Year 2019-20. It bears on section 80GGC, section 69C, section 115BBE, section 132, section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Deductions & Disallowances, Cash Credits & Unexplained Money, Reassessment & Reopening and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters.
This is the Revenue outcome on the same facts and the same political party as the taxpayer-side decisions, and it shows the exposure is larger than the deduction: a commission addition under s.69C is taxed under s.115BBE at the special rate with no set-off. The Bench was expressly invited to follow ACIT v Anuj Prakash Gupta, where a coordinate Bench had upheld deletion for want of assessee-specific evidence, and did not do so — so a practitioner cannot present the taxpayer line as settled. The divergence is between benches on how much weight the sworn admissions of the recipient's office bearers carry against a donor who produces only banking evidence.
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, a salaried employee, donated Rs 3,00,000 by NEFT to Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular) in the year relevant to AY 2019-20 and claimed the deduction under s.80GGC. The payment was reflected in his bank statement and supported by a donation receipt issued by the party. A search under s.132 was carried out on the party; the President and key office bearers, in statements recorded on oath, admitted that the party provided accommodation entries and explained that donations received through banking channels were returned to donors in cash after deducting commission. The Assessing Officer disallowed the Rs 3,00,000 and additionally made an addition of Rs 15,000 under s.69C read with s.115BBE on the presumption that the assessee had paid commission at five per cent of the donation. The CIT(A)/NFAC upheld both by order dated 30 January 2026. Before the Tribunal the assessee appeared in person and relied on the SMC Bench order in ACIT v Anuj Prakash Gupta, ITA No. 11/RPR/2026 decided 5 February 2026.
The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit and the order of the CIT(A) upheld (para 8). The Bench found no infirmity in the impugned order on consideration of the facts and the documents on record, having noted the search on the party and the sworn admissions of its President and office bearers as to the modus operandi of returning donations in cash after deducting commission (paras 4 and 8).
The Bench set out the assessee's case that the donation was made through banking channels and supported by a valid receipt, and that both the disallowance and the s.69C addition rested on assumptions without evidence (para 2), and the departmental case that the party was an accommodation entry provider routing funds through layers of entities and individuals, with its President and key office bearer admitting as much on oath during the search (para 3). It recorded the search and the sworn admissions as the Revenue's case (para 4), then relied on the Division Bench in Saurabh Pravinbhai Patel and Brajesh Pravinbhai Patel AOP v Assessment Unit, ITA No. 1017/Ahd/2023 decided 30 April 2025, which had confirmed an identical disallowance on donations to the same party (para 5). It noted that a consistent view had been taken in Rajen Jayantilal Merchant v ITO, ITA No. 1683/Ahd/2025 decided 13 November 2025, and Ritesh Sugan Jain v ITO, ITA No. 8546/Mum/2025 decided 27 April 2026 (para 6), and that a coordinate Bench in Shri Ram Agarwal v ITO, ITA No. 6591/Del/2025 decided 26 November 2025 had upheld rejection of the deduction on donations to a registered unrecognised political party (para 7). The decision relied on by the assessee was said to have been considered (para 4) but was not discussed or distinguished.
Considering entire facts of the case and the documents on record, I find no infirmity in the impugned order, hence, the same is upheld and appeal of the assessee is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
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 WhatsAppNot necessarily. The Delhi Bench dismissed the appeal in its entirety, holding that where a search under s.132 on the recipient party produced sworn statements of the President and key office bearers admitting that donations received through banking channels were returned to donors in cash after deducting commission, the payment through NEFT and a valid donation receipt do not save the deduction. The order does not separately deal with the s.69C addition; it upholds the impugned order as a whole. This was decided by the ITAT (Shri Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member (SMC Bench)) and bears on section 80GGC, section 69C, section 115BBE, section 132, section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 1134/DEL/2026; Assessment Year 2019-20. This is the Revenue outcome on the same facts and the same political party as the taxpayer-side decisions, and it shows the exposure is larger than the deduction: a commission addition under s.69C is taxed under s.115BBE at the special rate with no set-off. The Bench was expressly invited to follow ACIT v Anuj Prakash Gupta, where a coordinate Bench had upheld deletion for want of assessee-specific evidence, and did not do so — so a practitioner cannot present the taxpayer line as settled. The divergence is between benches on how much weight the sworn admissions of the recipient's office bearers carry against a donor who produces only banking evidence. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Treat the s.69C or s.68 add-on as a separate battle: argue that a presumed commission percentage with no evidence of payment is an estimate that cannot be sustained under s.69C, and press it as an independent ground.
The assessee, a salaried employee, donated Rs 3,00,000 by NEFT to Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular) in the year relevant to AY 2019-20 and claimed the deduction under s.80GGC. The payment was reflected in his bank statement and supported by a donation receipt issued by the party. A search under s.132 was carried out on the party; the President and key office bearers, in statements recorded on oath, admitted that the party provided accommodation entries and explained that donations received through banking channels were returned to donors in cash after deducting commission. The Assessing Officer disallowed the Rs 3,00,000 and additionally made an addition of Rs 15,000 under s.69C read with s.115BBE on the presumption that the assessee had paid commission at five per cent of the donation. The CIT(A)/NFAC upheld both by order dated 30 January 2026. Before the Tribunal the assessee appeared in person and relied on the SMC Bench order in ACIT v Anuj Prakash Gupta, ITA No. 11/RPR/2026 decided 5 February 2026. The matter was decided on 2026-06-12 by the ITAT (Shri Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member (SMC Bench)). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit and the order of the CIT(A) upheld (para 8). The Bench found no infirmity in the impugned order on consideration of the facts and the documents on record, having noted the search on the party and the sworn admissions of its President and office bearers as to the modus operandi of returning donations in cash after deducting commission (paras 4 and 8).
The Bench set out the assessee's case that the donation was made through banking channels and supported by a valid receipt, and that both the disallowance and the s.69C addition rested on assumptions without evidence (para 2), and the departmental case that the party was an accommodation entry provider routing funds through layers of entities and individuals, with its President and key office bearer admitting as much on oath during the search (para 3). It recorded the search and the sworn admissions as the Revenue's case (para 4), then relied on the Division Bench in Saurabh Pravinbhai Patel and Brajesh Pravinbhai Patel AOP v Assessment Unit, ITA No. 1017/Ahd/2023 decided 30 April 2025, which had confirmed an identical disallowance on donations to the same party (para 5). It noted that a consistent view had been taken in Rajen Jayantilal Merchant v ITO, ITA No. 1683/Ahd/2025 decided 13 November 2025, and Ritesh Sugan Jain v ITO, ITA No. 8546/Mum/2025 decided 27 April 2026 (para 6), and that a coordinate Bench in Shri Ram Agarwal v ITO, ITA No. 6591/Del/2025 decided 26 November 2025 had upheld rejection of the deduction on donations to a registered unrecognised political party (para 7). The decision relied on by the assessee was said to have been considered (para 4) but was not discussed or distinguished. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Considering entire facts of the case and the documents on record, I find no infirmity in the impugned order, hence, the same is upheld and appeal of the assessee is dismissed being devoid of any merit." The decision followed or applied Saurabh Pravinbhai Patel and Brajesh Pravinbhai Patel AOP v. Assessment Unit, ITA No. 1017/Ahd/2023, decided 30 April 2025 — followed; Rajen Jayantilal Merchant v. ITO, ITA No. 1683/Ahd/2025, decided 13 November 2025 — noted as a consistent view; Ritesh Sugan Jain v. ITO, ITA No. 8546/Mum/2025, decided 27 April 2026 — noted as a consistent view; Shri Ram Agarwal v. ITO, ITA No. 6591/Del/2025, decided 26 November 2025 — noted.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2026-06-12 and is reported as ITA No. 1134/DEL/2026; Assessment Year 2019-20. 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 80GGC, section 69C, section 115BBE, section 132, section 250, 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 helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit and the order of the CIT(A) upheld (para 8). The Bench found no infirmity in the impugned order on consideration of the facts and the documents on record, having noted the search on the party and the sworn admissions of its President and office bearers as to the modus operandi of returning donations in cash after deducting commission (paras 4 and 8). It arises in Deductions & Disallowances, Cash Credits & Unexplained Money, Reassessment & Reopening and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters, on section 80GGC, section 69C, section 115BBE, section 132, section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Shri Vikas Awasthy, 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. Do not rest on NEFT and a receipt alone — both were present here and both failed. Cite ACIT v Anuj Prakash Gupta and the assessee-specific-evidence line, but tell the client it has been declined by this Bench and is under appeal before the Chhattisgarh High Court. If the reopening is defective, take that ground and press it — the assessee here appeared in person and the reopening was not challenged before the Tribunal at all. Ask for the search statements and for cross-examination in writing at the assessment stage; that record is what separates the cases that succeed from those that do not.
Validity check could not be completed. Decided 12 June 2026; no appeal was traced on this pass. It is one of a run of orders to the same effect on the same political party, including Nouvelle Knowledge Services LLP v ITO Ward-44(6), ITA No. 5155/Del/2026, and the Ahmedabad and Mumbai orders it cites. It stands against ACIT v Anuj Prakash Gupta, ITA No. 11/RPR/2026 decided 5 February 2026, which the assessee cited and which the Bench did not follow or distinguish; that order is itself under appeal before the Chhattisgarh High Court in TAXC No. 56 of 2026. The conflict is between Tribunal benches, so 'high courts differ' is not the right label. 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.
Read in full from the plain /doc/ URL; 8 numbered paragraphs with the disposal at para 8. Paragraph 5 is a long block quotation of the Ahmedabad Bench order in Saurabh Pravinbhai Patel and Brajesh Pravinbhai Patel AOP v Assessment Unit, ITA No. 1017/Ahd/2023 decided 30 April 2025, which itself reproduces a CIT(A) order and, within that, paragraph 8 of Pavankumar M. Sanghvi v ITO; the paragraph numbers 2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 4, 5, 5.2, 6 and 8 appearing inside that quotation belong to those orders and not to this one. The quoted extract is also visibly corrupted, with the words 'disallowed u/s. 80' and 'GGC of the Act' separated by an unrelated passage. The Tribunal's own reasoning is confined to paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 and is very short. The order does not state the outcome on the s.69C addition of Rs 15,000 separately; it upholds the impugned order as a whole, so the addition stands by implication. The hearing was on 23 March 2026 and pronouncement on 12 June 2026, a gap of more than eighty days. 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 dismissed as devoid of merit and the order of the CIT(A) upheld (para 8). The Bench found no infirmity in the impugned order on consideration of the facts and the documents on record, having noted the search on the party and the sworn admissions of its President and office bearers as to the modus operandi of returning donations in cash after deducting commission (paras 4 and 8).
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
When must the satisfaction note be recorded before proceedings are taken against a third party?
How wide are the first appellate authority's powers when it disposes of an appeal?
Can the CIT(A) use the enhancement power to tax a source of income the Assessing Officer never examined?
Can an appellate authority under the Income-tax Act throw out an appeal because the appellant did not turn up?