The Assessing Officer has disallowed my whole Chapter VI-A block — 80C, 80D, 80G — and my HRA, saying I filed no documentary evidence. I did file it. What do I do?
The Jaipur Tribunal restored almost all of it, holding that where the assessee has actually placed the evidence on record the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) cannot disallow "arbitrarily" without discussing those documents. On s.80D in particular the Tribunal allowed Rs 50,000 of medical expenditure incurred on a dependent father who was a senior citizen suffering from Parkinson's, on the strength of a doctor's prescription, the father's Aadhaar showing his age, and bank entries evidencing the spend — with no insurance policy at all.
Decided by the ITAT (Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member and Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member (order by Kuldip Singh, JM)) on 2026-08-25, reported as ITA No. 752/JPR/2026 (ITAT Jaipur); Assessment Year 2019-20; heard 10 August 2026. It bears on section 80D, section 80C, section 80G, section 80GGC, section 80DDB, section 10(13A), section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Deductions & Disallowances, Salary & Perquisites, Reassessment & Reopening and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters.
This is the standard shape of the current sweep of reassessments on salaried returns: an AO reopens under s.148 on information about one item (usually a political donation), then disallows every Chapter VI-A deduction in the return for want of evidence, and NFAC confirms without looking at the paper book. The order is useful because it shows the answer is documentary and item-by-item, and because it recognises the s.80D limb that practitioners most often miss — s.80D(2)(c) and (d) allow medical EXPENDITURE, up to Rs 50,000, incurred on the health of a senior citizen for whom no amount has been paid to keep an insurance in force, so an uninsured elderly parent's medical bills are an 80D claim and not only an 80DDB one. Two cautions. First, all of this is available only in the old regime: none of s.80C, s.80D, s.80G, s.80GGC or the s.10(13A) HRA exemption survives s.115BAC, the default from AY 2024-25. Second, the reasoning in this order is loosely expressed in several places (see the editor note) and it is the outcome, not the citation of Rule 11DD, that should be relied on.
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 working in Mumbai, filed a return for assessment year 2019-20 claiming a s.80C deduction of Rs 1,38,400 for his own contribution to the Employees' Provident Fund, an exemption of Rs 2,54,000 under s.10(13A) out of rent of Rs 2,91,000 paid for rented premises in Mumbai, Rs 50,000 under s.80D for medical expenditure on his father, Rs 1,00,000 under s.80DDB for the treatment of the same father, Rs 50,000 under s.80G in respect of a donation of Rs 1,00,000 paid through banking channel to Baldeodas Bhagirathi Shah Trust, Mumbai, and Rs 1,00,000 under s.80GGC in respect of a donation to Manvadhikar National Party, a party registered under s.29A of the Representation of the People Act 1951. The Assessing Officer disallowed the whole block. On s.80GGC he relied on statements of Ram Bhawan Ojha and Tribhawan Ramkalp Ojha of Manvadhikar National Party and Kisan Adhikar Party to the effect that entries had been given in lieu of commission; no enquiry was made and the assessee was given no opportunity to cross-examine them. The father, a senior citizen, had suffered from Parkinson's (PSP) from 2017 and died in August 2021; the assessee said he had spent between Rs 1.5 lakh and Rs 2 lakh a year on his treatment. NFAC confirmed the whole disallowance by order dated 12 February 2026.
The appeal was partly allowed. (a) The s.80C deduction of Rs 1,38,400 was ordered to be allowed: the EPF passbook and Form 16 on record proved the contribution and both authorities had disallowed it without looking at them (para 7). (b) The s.10(13A) exemption of Rs 2,54,000 was held admissible subject to verification by the Assessing Officer, the rent note, the rent receipts bearing the landlord's name, address and PAN and the Form 16 in which the employer had itself allowed the exemption being "self speaking" (para 8). (c) The s.80D deduction of Rs 50,000 for medical expenditure on the father, a senior citizen, was ordered to be allowed on the doctor's prescription, the father's Aadhaar card showing him as a senior citizen and the bank entries showing purchase of medicine and a payment of Rs 1,95,000 to the father for treatment (paras 9 and 10). (d) The s.80G deduction of Rs 50,000 was directed to be allowed after due verification, the 80G approval, the receipt and the bank statement all being on record (para 11). (e) The s.80GGC issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh, because the addition rested only on the statements of two persons whom the assessee was never allowed to cross-examine and about whom no enquiry was made (para 6).
The Tribunal's route was evidentiary rather than doctrinal. On each head it went to the paper book, identified the page at which the document sat, and then asked whether the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) had dealt with it. On s.80C it found the EPF passbook at pages 19-20 and Form 16 at pages 16-17 and held the deduction had been disallowed "without pursuing" them. On HRA it found the rent note and receipts with the landlord's PAN and, decisively, that the employer had itself allowed Rs 2,54,000 under s.10(13A) in Form 16, and held that documents of that kind are self-speaking and had been disallowed arbitrarily without discussion. On s.80D it accepted the doctor's prescription, the Aadhaar card establishing the father's status as a senior citizen and the bank entries for medicine and for a Rs 1,95,000 transfer to the father, treated Parkinson's as a neurological disease requiring regular treatment, and held the confirmation of the disallowance to be an error. On s.80G it found the 80G approval and the donation receipt on record and held that the stated ground of non-furnishing of evidence was contrary to the record. On s.80GGC it applied the ordinary rule against additions founded on untested third-party statements: the assessee had produced the party's receipt, the HDFC bank statement and the party's s.29A registration, no findings had been returned on any of that, and no finding had been given as to how the assessee obtained a fictitious deduction if the party was not in existence — so the matter had to go back for a fresh decision on the material on record.
In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- claimed by the assessee u/s 80D on account of medical expenditure for his father, a senior citizen.
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 WhatsAppThe Jaipur Tribunal restored almost all of it, holding that where the assessee has actually placed the evidence on record the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) cannot disallow "arbitrarily" without discussing those documents. On s.80D in particular the Tribunal allowed Rs 50,000 of medical expenditure incurred on a dependent father who was a senior citizen suffering from Parkinson's, on the strength of a doctor's prescription, the father's Aadhaar showing his age, and bank entries evidencing the spend — with no insurance policy at all. This was decided by the ITAT (Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member and Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member (order by Kuldip Singh, JM)) and bears on section 80D, section 80C, section 80G, section 80GGC, section 80DDB, section 10(13A), section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 752/JPR/2026 (ITAT Jaipur); Assessment Year 2019-20; heard 10 August 2026. This is the standard shape of the current sweep of reassessments on salaried returns: an AO reopens under s.148 on information about one item (usually a political donation), then disallows every Chapter VI-A deduction in the return for want of evidence, and NFAC confirms without looking at the paper book. The order is useful because it shows the answer is documentary and item-by-item, and because it recognises the s.80D limb that practitioners most often miss — s.80D(2)(c) and (d) allow medical EXPENDITURE, up to Rs 50,000, incurred on the health of a senior citizen for whom no amount has been paid to keep an insurance in force, so an uninsured elderly parent's medical bills are an 80D claim and not only an 80DDB one. Two cautions. First, all of this is available only in the old regime: none of s.80C, s.80D, s.80G, s.80GGC or the s.10(13A) HRA exemption survives s.115BAC, the default from AY 2024-25. Second, the reasoning in this order is loosely expressed in several places (see the editor note) and it is the outcome, not the citation of Rule 11DD, that should be relied on. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Build a separate evidence bundle for each deduction and paginate it, then take the Tribunal's point that documents actually on record which the AO has not discussed cannot support an "arbitrary" disallowance.
The assessee, a salaried employee working in Mumbai, filed a return for assessment year 2019-20 claiming a s.80C deduction of Rs 1,38,400 for his own contribution to the Employees' Provident Fund, an exemption of Rs 2,54,000 under s.10(13A) out of rent of Rs 2,91,000 paid for rented premises in Mumbai, Rs 50,000 under s.80D for medical expenditure on his father, Rs 1,00,000 under s.80DDB for the treatment of the same father, Rs 50,000 under s.80G in respect of a donation of Rs 1,00,000 paid through banking channel to Baldeodas Bhagirathi Shah Trust, Mumbai, and Rs 1,00,000 under s.80GGC in respect of a donation to Manvadhikar National Party, a party registered under s.29A of the Representation of the People Act 1951. The Assessing Officer disallowed the whole block. On s.80GGC he relied on statements of Ram Bhawan Ojha and Tribhawan Ramkalp Ojha of Manvadhikar National Party and Kisan Adhikar Party to the effect that entries had been given in lieu of commission; no enquiry was made and the assessee was given no opportunity to cross-examine them. The father, a senior citizen, had suffered from Parkinson's (PSP) from 2017 and died in August 2021; the assessee said he had spent between Rs 1.5 lakh and Rs 2 lakh a year on his treatment. NFAC confirmed the whole disallowance by order dated 12 February 2026. The matter was decided on 2026-08-25 by the ITAT (Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member and Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member (order by Kuldip Singh, JM)). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The appeal was partly allowed. (a) The s.80C deduction of Rs 1,38,400 was ordered to be allowed: the EPF passbook and Form 16 on record proved the contribution and both authorities had disallowed it without looking at them (para 7). (b) The s.10(13A) exemption of Rs 2,54,000 was held admissible subject to verification by the Assessing Officer, the rent note, the rent receipts bearing the landlord's name, address and PAN and the Form 16 in which the employer had itself allowed the exemption being "self speaking" (para 8). (c) The s.80D deduction of Rs 50,000 for medical expenditure on the father, a senior citizen, was ordered to be allowed on the doctor's prescription, the father's Aadhaar card showing him as a senior citizen and the bank entries showing purchase of medicine and a payment of Rs 1,95,000 to the father for treatment (paras 9 and 10). (d) The s.80G deduction of Rs 50,000 was directed to be allowed after due verification, the 80G approval, the receipt and the bank statement all being on record (para 11). (e) The s.80GGC issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh, because the addition rested only on the statements of two persons whom the assessee was never allowed to cross-examine and about whom no enquiry was made (para 6).
The Tribunal's route was evidentiary rather than doctrinal. On each head it went to the paper book, identified the page at which the document sat, and then asked whether the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) had dealt with it. On s.80C it found the EPF passbook at pages 19-20 and Form 16 at pages 16-17 and held the deduction had been disallowed "without pursuing" them. On HRA it found the rent note and receipts with the landlord's PAN and, decisively, that the employer had itself allowed Rs 2,54,000 under s.10(13A) in Form 16, and held that documents of that kind are self-speaking and had been disallowed arbitrarily without discussion. On s.80D it accepted the doctor's prescription, the Aadhaar card establishing the father's status as a senior citizen and the bank entries for medicine and for a Rs 1,95,000 transfer to the father, treated Parkinson's as a neurological disease requiring regular treatment, and held the confirmation of the disallowance to be an error. On s.80G it found the 80G approval and the donation receipt on record and held that the stated ground of non-furnishing of evidence was contrary to the record. On s.80GGC it applied the ordinary rule against additions founded on untested third-party statements: the assessee had produced the party's receipt, the HDFC bank statement and the party's s.29A registration, no findings had been returned on any of that, and no finding had been given as to how the assessee obtained a fictitious deduction if the party was not in existence — so the matter had to go back for a fresh decision on the material on record. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- claimed by the assessee u/s 80D on account of medical expenditure for his father, a senior citizen."
It was decided by the ITAT on 2026-08-25 and is reported as ITA No. 752/JPR/2026 (ITAT Jaipur); Assessment Year 2019-20; heard 10 August 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 80C, section 80G, section 80GGC, section 80DDB, section 10(13A), 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 helps the taxpayer. The appeal was partly allowed. (a) The s.80C deduction of Rs 1,38,400 was ordered to be allowed: the EPF passbook and Form 16 on record proved the contribution and both authorities had disallowed it without looking at them (para 7). (b) The s.10(13A) exemption of Rs 2,54,000 was held admissible subject to verification by the Assessing Officer, the rent note, the rent receipts bearing the landlord's name, address and PAN and the Form 16 in which the employer had itself allowed the exemption being "self speaking" (para 8). (c) The s.80D deduction of Rs 50,000 for medical expenditure on the father, a senior citizen, was ordered to be allowed on the doctor's prescription, the father's Aadhaar card showing him as a senior citizen and the bank entries showing purchase of medicine and a payment of Rs 1,95,000 to the father for treatment (paras 9 and 10). (d) The s.80G deduction of Rs 50,000 was directed to be allowed after due verification, the 80G approval, the receipt and the bank statement all being on record (para 11). (e) The s.80GGC issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh, because the addition rested only on the statements of two persons whom the assessee was never allowed to cross-examine and about whom no enquiry was made (para 6). It arises in Deductions & Disallowances, Salary & Perquisites, Reassessment & Reopening and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters, on section 80D, section 80C, section 80G, section 80GGC, section 80DDB, section 10(13A), section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member and Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member (order by Kuldip Singh, JM). 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 an uninsured senior-citizen parent, claim under s.80D(2)(d) as medical expenditure rather than as premium: put on record the parent's age proof, the doctor's prescription or certificate, the pharmacy and hospital bills, and the bank entries showing the payments, and remember s.80D(2B) bars cash for this limb. For s.80C on employer-deducted provident fund, produce the EPF passbook from EPFO alongside Form 16 — the two together defeated the disallowance here without anything more. For s.80G, put on record the donee's 80G approval, the receipt, and the bank statement showing the payment through banking channel, and be ready for the Form 10BE point separately for AY 2022-23 onward. Where the addition rests on a third party's statement — here the office-bearers of the political party said to have returned cash — demand cross-examination in writing; the Tribunal remitted the s.80GGC ground precisely because no enquiry was made and no cross-examination offered. Check the regime first: from AY 2024-25 none of these deductions is available unless Form 10-IEA opting out of s.115BAC was filed within the s.139(1) due date.
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 25 August 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 August 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 order as reported contains several errors that a reader must be warned about. (i) Paragraph 7 deals with the s.80C EPF claim of Rs 1,38,400 but its concluding sentence says the CIT(A) "has erred in disallowing deduction of Rs. 1,38,400/- claimed by the assessee u/s 80G" — the section number is plainly a slip for 80C. (ii) Paragraph 9 says the disallowance was confirmed "on the ground that documentary evidence has been furnished by the assessee", which must be a slip for has NOT been furnished. (iii) Paragraph 10 says Parkinson's "is also covered under rule 11DDI(1) of IT Rules for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80D of the Act": Rule 11DD is the rule prescribing specified diseases for s.80DDB, not for s.80D, and there is no Rule 11DDI; a s.80D(2)(d) claim for a senior citizen's medical expenditure carries no specified-disease requirement at all. The outcome on s.80D is sound but this sentence should not be cited as a proposition. (iv) Ground 4 claimed Rs 1,00,000 under s.80DDB for the same father; the order contains no separate adjudication of that ground and it is not clear whether the Tribunal treated it as subsumed in the s.80D relief. (v) Paragraph 6 records the s.80GGC donations as made in "March, 2014" although the year under appeal is 2019-20. (vi) The bench line reads "JAIPUR 'SMC' BENCH" but two Members signed the order. (vii) There are two paragraphs numbered 6. The statutory description of s.80D(2)(c) and (d) in the entry was taken from the Income Tax Department's own section page (2023 version), not from 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. (a) The s.80C deduction of Rs 1,38,400 was ordered to be allowed: the EPF passbook and Form 16 on record proved the contribution and both authorities had disallowed it without looking at them (para 7). (b) The s.10(13A) exemption of Rs 2,54,000 was held admissible subject to verification by the Assessing Officer, the rent note, the rent receipts bearing the landlord's name, address and PAN and the Form 16 in which the employer had itself allowed the exemption being "self speaking" (para 8). (c) The s.80D deduction of Rs 50,000 for medical expenditure on the father, a senior citizen, was ordered to be allowed on the doctor's prescription, the father's Aadhaar card showing him as a senior citizen and the bank entries showing purchase of medicine and a payment of Rs 1,95,000 to the father for treatment (paras 9 and 10). (d) The s.80G deduction of Rs 50,000 was directed to be allowed after due verification, the 80G approval, the receipt and the bank statement all being on record (para 11). (e) The s.80GGC issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh, because the addition rested only on the statements of two persons whom the assessee was never allowed to cross-examine and about whom no enquiry was made (para 6).
TaxSphere, “Sumit Maloo v ITO, Kishangarh”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/sumit-maloo-v-ito-80d-senior-citizen-parent-medical-expenditure/ (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.
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?
I filed my return under the new regime by default, then filed a revised return within time switching to the old regime and claiming my exemptions and Chapter VI-A deductions. The CPC has processed it under the new regime saying the regime cannot be changed in a revised return. Can it?
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?
I meant to stay in the new regime but a wrong Form 10-IE put me back in the old one, and CPC has taxed me under the old regime with no Chapter VI-A deductions because I claimed none in the return. Can I claim them now?
