I paid the political party by cheque and I hold the receipt. Is that enough to save my s.80GGC deduction when the department says the party was running an accommodation-entry racket?
Not on this record. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that payment through banking channels and production of a donation receipt cannot override the search material showing that the recipient party systematically layered donations through shell entities and returned the cash. It also rejected the challenge to the s.148 notice.
Decided by the ITAT (Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-President (SMC Bench)) on 2026-07-22, reported as ITA No. 2452/Ahd/2025 (ITAT Ahmedabad, SMC Bench); Assessment Year 2019-20. It bears on section 80GGC, section 147, section 148, section 148A(d), section 151A, section 144B, section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Deductions & Disallowances, Reassessment & Reopening and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters.
This is the Revenue side of the RUPP line and a practitioner who reads only the taxpayer wins will advise badly. The assessee here raised every ground that is usually raised — no jurisdiction under s.151A because the jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued the notice rather than the faceless centre, mechanical reliance on the Investigation Wing, no cash trail, no cross-examination of Shri Ram Bhawan Ojha and the other deponents — and lost on all of them. The Tribunal dealt with the s.148 ground in a single sentence and did not separately adjudicate the cross-examination ground at all, disposing of grounds 2 to 6 together by following co-ordinate benches. That is the practical risk: where the assessee does no more than repeat the grounds and files no fresh material, the Ahmedabad and Mumbai benches apply Durga Prasad More and Sumati Dayal and dismiss. Contrast Manoj Kumar Jagetia v. ITO, ITA No.1050/Jodh/2025 (1 September 2026), where the same search material failed because the assessee pressed for the specific document and the cross-examination and the Revenue could produce neither. Note also that s.80GGC is unavailable altogether under s.115BAC, the default regime from AY 2024-25; this appeal is AY 2019-20.
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 his return for AY 2019-20 under s.139(1) claiming a deduction of Rs.2,00,000 under s.80GGC for a donation made through banking channels to a registered political party. On information from the Investigation Wing about bogus political donations routed through certain registered unrecognised political parties, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under s.148A, passed an order under s.148A(d) and issued a s.148 notice dated 20 April 2023. The reassessment was completed under s.147 read with s.144B and the Rs.2,00,000 deduction was disallowed as not genuine. Before the Tribunal the assessee raised six grounds: that the s.148 notice was void because it was issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre contrary to s.151A and CBDT Notification No.18/2022; that the reassessment rested on Investigation Wing information with no independent enquiry; that no cash trail, statement or document showed any money coming back to him; that the disallowance rested on third-party confessions while he had paid through banking channels and held valid receipts; that the assessment was built on suspicion, bank balance and assumptions about practicality; and that statements of Shri Ram Bhawan Ojha and others recorded under s.132(4) were used without furnishing copies or allowing cross-examination. The CIT(A), NFAC, dismissed the appeal by order dated 25 November 2025, holding that where the department holds material suggesting a colourable device the burden shifts to the appellant, and that expecting the Assessing Officer to establish the precise manner of cash re-routing was unreasonable when the scheme is designed to obscure the final cash leg.
Appeal dismissed. Ground 1 was rejected on the finding that the reassessment proceedings were initiated in accordance with the Act, so the s.148 notice could not be held to be without jurisdiction or invalid (para 6). On grounds 2 to 6, the assessee was held to have failed to establish that the contribution was a genuine donation eligible for deduction under s.80GGC; mere payment through banking channels and production of donation receipts could not, on these facts, override the evidence that the recipient party was engaged in providing accommodation entries through a systematic layering of funds, and no infirmity was found in the CIT(A)'s order (paras 11 and 12).
The Tribunal disposed of the jurisdictional ground in one sentence and then treated the merits as covered by co-ordinate benches, reproducing at length Saurabh Pravinbhai Patel v. ITO, ITA No.1017/Ahd/2023 (30 April 2025) and, within it, the Rajkot bench in Milind Pankajbhai Shroff v. Pr. CIT, ITA No.93/RJT/2023 (20 May 2024), and listing Mihir Bipinbhai Parekh, Ritesh Sugan Jain and Rajen Jayantilal Merchant as further instances (paras 7 to 9). The reproduced material set out the search findings against Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular): a registered unrecognised political party among 23 in the Ahmedabad RUPP group, no office at its registered address, donations received by cheque and moved out the same day to intermediaries, no cash withdrawals for rent, electricity or fuel, declared donations of Rs.14,73,309 against bank credits of Rs.38,15,03,885, statements on oath under s.132(4) of the national president Smt. Sandhya Singh, of Shri Bishwajeet Singh and of a past president Shri Amitkumar Chaturvedi admitting the bogus donation scam and the return of donations after commission, no contribution report filed under s.29C of the Representation of the People Act 1951 since FY 2013-14, and no retraction of any statement. In its own reasoning the Tribunal applied CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) for the proposition that the taxing authorities are not required to put on blinkers merely because a transaction is supported by documentary evidence and may look beyond the apparent, examine surrounding circumstances and apply the test of human probabilities; the investigation material, the s.132(4) statements, the bank trail analysis and the established modus operandi were held to be a complete chain of circumstances (para 10). The decisions cited for the assessee were said to be distinguishable on facts without individual discussion (para 11).
Mere payment through banking channels and production of donation receipts cannot, in the facts of the present case, override the overwhelming evidence demonstrating that the recipient political party was engaged in providing accommodation entries through a systematic layering of funds.
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 on this record. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that payment through banking channels and production of a donation receipt cannot override the search material showing that the recipient party systematically layered donations through shell entities and returned the cash. It also rejected the challenge to the s.148 notice. This was decided by the ITAT (Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-President (SMC Bench)) and bears on section 80GGC, section 147, section 148, section 148A(d), section 151A, section 144B, section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 2452/Ahd/2025 (ITAT Ahmedabad, SMC Bench); Assessment Year 2019-20. This is the Revenue side of the RUPP line and a practitioner who reads only the taxpayer wins will advise badly. The assessee here raised every ground that is usually raised — no jurisdiction under s.151A because the jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued the notice rather than the faceless centre, mechanical reliance on the Investigation Wing, no cash trail, no cross-examination of Shri Ram Bhawan Ojha and the other deponents — and lost on all of them. The Tribunal dealt with the s.148 ground in a single sentence and did not separately adjudicate the cross-examination ground at all, disposing of grounds 2 to 6 together by following co-ordinate benches. That is the practical risk: where the assessee does no more than repeat the grounds and files no fresh material, the Ahmedabad and Mumbai benches apply Durga Prasad More and Sumati Dayal and dismiss. Contrast Manoj Kumar Jagetia v. ITO, ITA No.1050/Jodh/2025 (1 September 2026), where the same search material failed because the assessee pressed for the specific document and the cross-examination and the Revenue could produce neither. Note also that s.80GGC is unavailable altogether under s.115BAC, the default regime from AY 2024-25; this appeal is AY 2019-20. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Do not rest the appeal on the bank statement and the receipt alone — on this authority that is the losing case.
The assessee filed his return for AY 2019-20 under s.139(1) claiming a deduction of Rs.2,00,000 under s.80GGC for a donation made through banking channels to a registered political party. On information from the Investigation Wing about bogus political donations routed through certain registered unrecognised political parties, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under s.148A, passed an order under s.148A(d) and issued a s.148 notice dated 20 April 2023. The reassessment was completed under s.147 read with s.144B and the Rs.2,00,000 deduction was disallowed as not genuine. Before the Tribunal the assessee raised six grounds: that the s.148 notice was void because it was issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre contrary to s.151A and CBDT Notification No.18/2022; that the reassessment rested on Investigation Wing information with no independent enquiry; that no cash trail, statement or document showed any money coming back to him; that the disallowance rested on third-party confessions while he had paid through banking channels and held valid receipts; that the assessment was built on suspicion, bank balance and assumptions about practicality; and that statements of Shri Ram Bhawan Ojha and others recorded under s.132(4) were used without furnishing copies or allowing cross-examination. The CIT(A), NFAC, dismissed the appeal by order dated 25 November 2025, holding that where the department holds material suggesting a colourable device the burden shifts to the appellant, and that expecting the Assessing Officer to establish the precise manner of cash re-routing was unreasonable when the scheme is designed to obscure the final cash leg. The matter was decided on 2026-07-22 by the ITAT (Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-President (SMC Bench)). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. Appeal dismissed. Ground 1 was rejected on the finding that the reassessment proceedings were initiated in accordance with the Act, so the s.148 notice could not be held to be without jurisdiction or invalid (para 6). On grounds 2 to 6, the assessee was held to have failed to establish that the contribution was a genuine donation eligible for deduction under s.80GGC; mere payment through banking channels and production of donation receipts could not, on these facts, override the evidence that the recipient party was engaged in providing accommodation entries through a systematic layering of funds, and no infirmity was found in the CIT(A)'s order (paras 11 and 12).
The Tribunal disposed of the jurisdictional ground in one sentence and then treated the merits as covered by co-ordinate benches, reproducing at length Saurabh Pravinbhai Patel v. ITO, ITA No.1017/Ahd/2023 (30 April 2025) and, within it, the Rajkot bench in Milind Pankajbhai Shroff v. Pr. CIT, ITA No.93/RJT/2023 (20 May 2024), and listing Mihir Bipinbhai Parekh, Ritesh Sugan Jain and Rajen Jayantilal Merchant as further instances (paras 7 to 9). The reproduced material set out the search findings against Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular): a registered unrecognised political party among 23 in the Ahmedabad RUPP group, no office at its registered address, donations received by cheque and moved out the same day to intermediaries, no cash withdrawals for rent, electricity or fuel, declared donations of Rs.14,73,309 against bank credits of Rs.38,15,03,885, statements on oath under s.132(4) of the national president Smt. Sandhya Singh, of Shri Bishwajeet Singh and of a past president Shri Amitkumar Chaturvedi admitting the bogus donation scam and the return of donations after commission, no contribution report filed under s.29C of the Representation of the People Act 1951 since FY 2013-14, and no retraction of any statement. In its own reasoning the Tribunal applied CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) for the proposition that the taxing authorities are not required to put on blinkers merely because a transaction is supported by documentary evidence and may look beyond the apparent, examine surrounding circumstances and apply the test of human probabilities; the investigation material, the s.132(4) statements, the bank trail analysis and the established modus operandi were held to be a complete chain of circumstances (para 10). The decisions cited for the assessee were said to be distinguishable on facts without individual discussion (para 11). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Mere payment through banking channels and production of donation receipts cannot, in the facts of the present case, override the overwhelming evidence demonstrating that the recipient political party was engaged in providing accommodation entries through a systematic layering of funds." The decision followed or applied Saurabh Pravinbhai Patel v. ITO, ITA No.1017/Ahd/2023, order dated 30.04.2025 — followed; Milind Pankajbhai Shroff v. Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot, ITA No.93/RJT/2023, order dated 20.05.2024 — followed; CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) — applied; Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) — applied; Pavankumar M. Sanghvi v. ITO [2017] 81 taxmann.com 308, SLP dismissed [2018] 97 taxmann.com 398/258 Taxman 160 (SC) — relied on within the quoted material.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2026-07-22 and is reported as ITA No. 2452/Ahd/2025 (ITAT Ahmedabad, SMC Bench); 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 147, section 148, section 148A(d), section 151A, section 144B, section 132(4), 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. Appeal dismissed. Ground 1 was rejected on the finding that the reassessment proceedings were initiated in accordance with the Act, so the s.148 notice could not be held to be without jurisdiction or invalid (para 6). On grounds 2 to 6, the assessee was held to have failed to establish that the contribution was a genuine donation eligible for deduction under s.80GGC; mere payment through banking channels and production of donation receipts could not, on these facts, override the evidence that the recipient party was engaged in providing accommodation entries through a systematic layering of funds, and no infirmity was found in the CIT(A)'s order (paras 11 and 12). It arises in Deductions & Disallowances, Reassessment & Reopening and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters, on section 80GGC, section 147, section 148, section 148A(d), section 151A, section 144B, section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-President (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. Build an evidentiary record in the assessment itself: a written demand for the seized documents and statements, a written request for cross-examination, and the department's response or silence, all placed on the file before the assessment is completed. Bring the donation into some intelligible relation to your affairs — quantum against gross total income, any association with the party, any prior or later giving; a donation that is a large fraction of income and has no explanation invites the inference drawn here. Expect the s.151A / faceless-notice ground to be dealt with summarily by this bench; do not let it displace the merits. Read this order together with Jagetia before advising whether to fight or to pay — the two benches are not reconciled and the outcome turns on the record.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. A `citedby:` citator search on this order's Indian Kanoon id returns no later decision citing it. A second, differently worded probe - the assessee's name restricted to documents from 22 July 2026 onward, across all courts including the High Courts and the Supreme Court - turned up no judicial treatment either. In particular no appeal under section 260A, and so no High Court reversal, could be traced, and no later Bench was found taking the opposite view. This is a July 2026 order, so the silence reflects its age rather than any doubt about it: a practitioner may cite it as the only direct authority on the point but should not expect it to be treated as settled. 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 cause title as printed shows an 'SMC' Bench with a single member, Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-President, and the order is signed 'PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT', yet the signature block as retrieved shows three 'Sd/-' marks against one name. Read as a single-member SMC order. Paragraphs 7 to 9 of the order are almost entirely a quotation of Saurabh Pravinbhai Patel v. ITO, ITA No.1017/Ahd/2023 (30 April 2025), which itself quotes the CIT(A) and the Rajkot order in Milind Pankajbhai Shroff; the Tribunal's own reasoning is confined to paras 6 and 10 to 12. Two passes were made at the print URL; the second returned a paraphrase of paras 6 to 12 that agreed in substance with the verbatim text obtained on the first pass. The quoted sentence is from para 11. The order refers to an appeal 'Ritesh Sugan Jain Vs. ITO (ITA No. 8546/Mum/2025)' inside a list numbered (i) to (iii) containing four names, so one item is mis-numbered in the report. 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.
Appeal dismissed. Ground 1 was rejected on the finding that the reassessment proceedings were initiated in accordance with the Act, so the s.148 notice could not be held to be without jurisdiction or invalid (para 6). On grounds 2 to 6, the assessee was held to have failed to establish that the contribution was a genuine donation eligible for deduction under s.80GGC; mere payment through banking channels and production of donation receipts could not, on these facts, override the evidence that the recipient party was engaged in providing accommodation entries through a systematic layering of funds, and no infirmity was found in the CIT(A)'s order (paras 11 and 12).
TaxSphere, “Meetkumar Hasmukhbhai Chaturvedi v ITO”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/meetkumar-chaturvedi-v-ito-80ggc-bogus-political-donation-upheld/ (validity last checked 2026-09-07)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The officer has reopened my scrutiny assessment because the audit party disagreed with what he allowed. Is that a fresh look or a change of opinion?
Your s.148 notice came from your own local officer, not from the faceless unit. Does that matter?
I filed under s.44AD and the officer has still added my whole bank credit under s.69A. Doesn't the presumptive return protect me?
The Finance Act 2026 seems to have changed the reassessment rules backwards in time. What exactly did it change, from which dates, and which of my grounds has it taken away?
