Section 80GGC Deduction Disallowed as Donation to Political

Section 80GGC Deduction Disallowed as Donation to Political Party Was Fake Accommodation Entry

Issue

Whether a claim for deduction under section 80GGC for a donation made to a registered unrecognized political party can be disallowed under section 148 reassessment when investigation material demonstrates that the contribution was a non-genuine accommodation entry.

Facts

The assessee claimed a deduction of ₹2.00 lakhs under section 80GGC for AY 2019-20 for a donation made to a registered political party through banking channels.
The Assessing Officer (AO) received information from the Investigation Wing regarding bogus political donations routed through certain registered unrecognized political parties.
Based on this information, the AO reopened the assessment under section 148 and disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80GGC.
The investigation revealed material including statements recorded under section 132(4), bank trail analysis, and the established modus operandi of the recipient political party.
The evidence formed a complete chain of circumstances demonstrating that the donation was merely an accommodation entry rather than a genuine political contribution.

Decision

Disallowance Upheld: The investigation material, sworn statements under section 132(4), and bank trail analysis established that the donation was a mere accommodation entry.
Banking Channels Not Conclusive: Making a payment through banking channels does not automatically establish the genuineness of a transaction when overwhelming circumstantial evidence proves otherwise.
Outcome: The assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80GGC was rightly disallowed, and the assessment order was decided in favor of the Revenue.

Key Takeaways

Substance Over Form: Payment through banking channels alone is insufficient to prove the genuineness of a political donation under section 80GGC if the recipient party is involved in accommodation entry syndicates.
Evidentiary Weight of Investigation Reports: Statements recorded under section 132(4) combined with bank trail analysis constitute strong circumstantial evidence to dismantle bogus tax deduction claims.
Validity of Reassessment: Reopening under section 148 is valid when tangible information from the Investigation Wing exposes organized tax evasion schemes.

IN THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH ‘SMC’

Meetkumar Hasmukhbhai Chaturvedi

Income-tax Officer

Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice President

IT Appeal No. 2452 (AHD) of 2025
[Assessment year 2019-20]

JULY 22, 2026

Deependra Kumar, Sr.DR for the Respondent.

ORDER

Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-president.-This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2019-20.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of Appeal:-

Ground 1: Invalid Reopening: Notice u/s 148 Without Jurisdiction, The learned AO erred in issuing notice u/s 148 dated 20.04.2023 without jurisdiction and in violation of Section 151A read with the Faceless Scheme notified on 29.03.2022. As the notice was required to be issued by NFAC, the notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO is bad in law, ab initio void, and the consequential proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 1448 deserve to be quashed.

Ground 2: Non application of mind: Mechanical Reliance on Investigation Wing Information The learned AO erred in initiating and completing reassessment proceedings solely on the basis of information from the Investigation Wing regarding search on certain political parties, without independent inquiry, without verification, and without bringing any adverse material on record to show the appellant s involvement in any alleged bogus political donation activity.

Ground 3: No Evidence of Cash back or Appellants Involvement. The learned AO erred in relying only on the alleged modus operandi, third party statements and generalized findings of search, without bringing on record any evidence, document, cash trail, statement, or corroborative material showing that any portion of the amount donated by the appellant was returned in cash or otherwise.

Ground 4: Wrongful Disallowance of Deduction u/s 80GGC The learned AO erred in disallowing the deduction of 2,00,000 u/s 80GGC merely on the basis of third party confessions and search findings, ignoring that the appellant made the donation through banking channels and possessed valid receipts, and without proving that the donation was bogus or that the appellant received any money back.

Ground 5: Assessment Based on Suspicion, Not Evidence. The learned AO erred in treating the donation as bogus on presumptions such as bank balance, income level, or assumptions about practicality, instead of verifying facts or conducting any inquiry to disprove the genuineness of the donation.

Ground 6: Statements of Third Parties Cannot Be Used Without Cross Examination. The learned AO erred in relying on the statements of Shri Ram Bhawan Ojha and others recorded u/s 132(4) without furnishing copies to the appellant or granting opportunity of cross examination, rendering the addition void in law.

3. The assessee filed the return of income for the relevant Assessment Year under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, claiming deduction of Rs.2,00,000/- under section 80GGC in respect of donation made to a registered political party through banking channels. Subsequently, based on information received from the Investigation Wing regarding alleged bogus political donations made through certain registered unrecognised political parties, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under section 148A of the Act. Thereafter, an order under section 148A(d) was passed and notice under section 148 dated 20.04.2023 was issued, pursuant to which reassessment proceedings were completed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80GGC amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-, holding that the donation was not genuine on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing and the alleged modus operandi of certain political parties.

4. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as follows:

“…..5.2. Decision on Grounds 2 & 3: Merits of Addition u/s 80GGC (Genuineness of Donation): 5.2.1. The core issue revolves around the genuineness of the deduction claimed under Section 80GGC of Rs. 2,00,000/-for a political donation. The appellant contends that the transaction was bona fide and the AO failed to bring on record any material directly linking the appellant to the alleged “bogus donation scam” or proving the re-routing/receipt of cash back. 5.2.2. The AO’s action for reopening was based on specific intelligence and material, presumably from a search action against a third party (an alleged entry provider or the political party itself), which indicated a quid pro quo arrangement where the nominal donation was merely a facade. This mechanism involves the donor making a payment (via banking channels) to the political party, obtaining a deduction certificate, and then receiving 1052973844(1)

the corresponding cash back from the party’s network, thereby converting unaccounted cash into ostensibly accounted funds through the deduction claim.

5.2.3. While the appellant has produced a bank statement showing the outgoing payment and a donation receipt, the law is well-settled that the mere presence of documentary evidence is not sufficient if the transaction itself lacks commercial or legal substance. When the department is in possession of material that suggests the transaction is a “colourable device” or a circular transaction, the burden of proving the genuineness and bona fides of the transaction shifts significantly to the appellant. 5.2.4. In this case, the AO’s conclusion that the donation was part of an arrangement where the cash was received back is a clear finding of fact based on the material obtained. For a deduction under Section 80GGC to be permissible, the payment must be an actual, genuine, and voluntary contribution. If the money is routed back to the donor, the donation is no longer a contribution but a mere conduit or an accommodation entry. 5.2.5. The appellant’s argument that the AO failed to establish the precise manner of cash rerouting (e.g., who paid, when they paid) is an unreasonable expectation when the entire scheme is designed to obscure the final cash leg. The AO has established the initial linkage (payment made), the finding of fact (cash received back), and the consequence (disallowance). 5.2.6. The evidence gathered by the AO, even if circumstantial and from a third party, is sufficient to demonstrate that the transaction was not at arm’s length and was orchestrated to reduce the tax liability through a non-genuine deduction. The overall common-sensical, logical, and nuanced observation is that transactions designed for the sole purpose of tax evasion, regardless of how meticulously documented, cannot be permitted under the Act. 5.2.7. Therefore, based on the findings that the deduction claimed u/s 80GGC was part of a non-genuine, re-routed transaction lacking bona fides, the AO was correct in disallowing the deduction. The AO’s findings are upheld.

5.3. Decision: 5.3.1. Both the jurisdictional grounds and the grounds challenging the merits of the addition are found to be without substance. 5.3.2. The addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 read with Section 144B on account of the disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80GGC is confirmed. 5.3.3. The appeal is rejected in its entirety.”

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal.

6. Ground No. 1 relates to the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. It is found that the reassessment proceedings were initiated in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 cannot be held to be without jurisdiction or invalid. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is dismissed.

Ground No. 2 to 6 On merits as well as on principle of natural justice and order on presumption basis :

7. On careful consideration of the grounds of appeal, it is found that the identical issue was considered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in in the case of Saurabh Pravinbhai Patel v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 1017(Ahd) of 2023, dated 30.04.2025] on donation made to political parties u/s. 80GGC of the Act wherein it was held as follows:

“4. Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the Tribunal’s decision, confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by observing as follows:

“While adjudicating the instant case by the undersigned, the eyeopening facts came in notice in the case of Pavan Anil Bakeri v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax adjudicated by the Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench which changed the course of the case to a whole new direction In the above case the Hon’ble ITAT held that where assessee made donation to a political party and claimed deduction under section 80GGC, since Assessing Officer found that bank accounts of above political party had been used by accommodation entry provider where donation received by cheques were layered though various bank accounts and ultimately cash was returned back, donation claimed under section 80GGC was merely accommodation entry and thus, disallowance of deduction under section 80GGC was proper. The sequence of events in the above case are “The assessee paid donation of Rs 52,00,000/- to Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular) To verify the genuineness and utilization purpose of the donation, a notice u/s 133(6) was issued on 5-102018 to Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (RSP) There was no representation from RSP Therefore another opportunity was granted vide letter dated 16-10-2018 Again there was no response from RSP. Therefore a summon u/s 131(1) of the Act was issued to Shri S.N. Chaturvedi, National President, RSP to attend the office on 19-11-2018 to produce the requisite the donation details. No one attended the office of the said date of hearing.

21 RSP is a political party registered with Election Commission of India. The Assessing Officer called for the bank details of RSP with Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Naroda Branch. From the perusal of the bank statement, it was observed there was a credit entry of Rs. 52,00,000/-on 07-10-2015 which is donation given by the assessee and there was two debit entries amounting to Rs. 27,00,000/- and Rs 25,00,000/- respectively on the same day On further enquiry from the Oriental Bank of Commerce the amount of Rs. 27,00,000/-credited to Sterlite Inc and Rs 25,00,000/-credited to Shah And Co. on 7-10-2015.

2.2 . On examination of the RSP bank statement, it was found that it is a general practice of crediting huge cash and subsequently transferring to another party on same day. Further analysis of the transaction particulars reveals that the cash was transferred to mainly four parties namely Guru Enterprise, Unique Trading, Mahavaisnavi and KK Indersriz. It was also observed that no cashwithdrawal for expenses like rent, electricity, water, newspaper, fuel etc of RSP and is not reflecting in the bank account. There is an Inspector of Income-tax was deputed to visit the premises of RSP at UG-8. Harekrishna Complex, C.TM Char Rasta, Amraiwadi, Ahmedabad-380026 on 15-11-2018 The Inspector submitted his report that RSP office situated on 2nd Floor of 3 storey building which is a small shop and shutter of which was half closed on that day. Nearby peoples were inquired that RSP Office which is found to be closed in most of the times. Copy of the said RSP Office photographs is reproduced in the assessment order. Further perusal of the records of RSP it is observed that during the assessment year 2016-17, RSP has received only donation amounting to Rs. 14,73,309/- whereas as per the bank account statement of the RSP in Oriental Bank of Commerce, total amount credited is Rs. 38,15,03,885/-That apart from RSP is maintaining two other bank account one at Bank of India and another of Central Bank of India. Further enquiry of Mis. Sterlite Inc and Shah And Co both the accounts were closed on 30-3-2016. An enquiry by the Bank both the proprietorship firms, where there is no stocks found and the office premises were being occupied by another person.

2.3 On further verification the donation amount of Rs. 52,00,000/-paid by the assessee to RSP was transferred to Waheguru Enterprise and Sapan Traders on 7-10-2015 of Rs. 25,00 000/-and Rs. 27,00,000/- respectively. This systematic pattern of transferring the funds credited by RSP clearly establishes the modus operandi of the account opening i.e. to route or transfer the funds of RSP back to the donator. Thus the assessee gave Rs. 52,00,000/- to RSP in the form of donation which was transferred to accounts of Shri Mukesh Mehta who claimed to be a businessman. Again the said amount was transferred to Sapan Traders and Waheguru Enterprise. Thus the donation claimed to be paid by the assesse is found to be bogus and the same is disallowed u/s. 80GGC of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income.”

On further appeal Ld. CIT (A) observed in the case “The Assessing Officer has clearly brought out facts that bank accounts of above political party have been used by the accommodation entry provider where the donation received by cheques were layered through various bank accounts and ultimately cash was returned back. I therefore, agree with the findings given by the AO that donation of Rs. 52,00,000/-claimed u/s. 80GGC is merely accommodation entry. The Honorable ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Pavankumar M. Sanghvi v. ITO, Wd. 3(1)(2), Baroda on the issue of accommodation entry has observed as under-

“8. As I proceed to deal with genuineness aspect, it is important to bear in mind the fact that what is genuine and what is not genuine is a matter of perception based on facts of the case vis-a-vis the ground realities. The facts of the case cannot be considered in isolation with the ground realities. It will, therefore, be useful to understand as to how the shell entries, which the loan creditors are alleged to be, typically function, and then compare these characteristics with the facts of the case and in the light of well settled legal principles. A shell entity is generally an entity without any significant trading, manufacturing or service activity, or with high volume low margin transactions to give it colour of a normal business entity used as a vehicle for various financial manoeuvers. A shell entity, by itself, it not an illegal entity but it is their act of abatement, of, and being part of financial manoeuvring to legitimize illicit monies and evade taxes, that takes it actions beyond what is legally permissible These entities have every semblance of a genuine business its legal ownership by persons in existence, statutory documentation as necessary for a legitimate business and a documentation trail as a legitimate transaction would normally follow. The only thing which sets its apart from a genuine business entity is lack of genuineness in its actual operations. The operations came out by these entities, are only to facilitate financial manoeuvring for the benefit of its clients, or with that predominant underlying objective, to give the colour of genuineness to these entities. These shell entities, which are routinely used to launder unaccounted monies, are a fact of life, and as much a part of the underbelly of the financial world, as many other evils. Even a layman, much less a Member of this specialized Tribunal, cannot be oblivious of these ground realities.”

In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble ITAT bench held “As regarding ground no. 2, donation of Rs. 52,00,000/- made u/s. 80GGC, the ground is general in nature. The assessee has not produced any additional evidence in support of its claim. In fact the assessee had stated that it had cordial relationship with Mr. Kamlendu Tripathi Secretary of RSP and no other criteria was followed for making these donations. The Ld AO made a detailed enquiry of RSP and its Bank accounts and transfer of funds to one Shri Mukesh Mehta proprietor of two firms and he transferred it to Waheguru Enterprise and Sapan Traders, which is clearly a systematic financial maneuver to legitimate illicit moneys and evade taxes. It is appropriate to follow the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment, wherein SLP filed by the assessee is dismissed confirming the Tribunal’s decision to come to the conclusion that the entire loan transaction was not genuine, in the case of Pavankumar M. Sanghvi v. ITO (SC) which held as follows:

Assessee received certain sum as loan from two companies -Assessing Officer having found that said lender companies were shell entities added loan amount to income of assessee under section 68-Bank statement of lender companies revealed high transactions during day and a consistently minimal balance at end of working day-Further day when assessee was given loan there were credit entries of almost similar amounts, and balance after these transactions was a small amount Tribunal taking into account bank statements of lender companies and fact that assessee failed to produce these lenders for verification held that alleged loan transactions were not genuine -High Court by impugned order held that since Tribunal had given elaborate reasons to come to conclusion that entire loan transaction was not genuine, appeal filed before it was to be dismissed Whether Special Leave Petition against impugned order was to be dismissed.

5.2 In the absence of any evidence from the assessee, the grounds raised by the assessee are untenable and therefore the same is rejected. The findings given by the lower authorities does not require any interference and the addition is sustained.

It is pertinent to mention here that out of two political parties to whom the appellant paid total donation of Rs. 1,13,51,000/- the modus operandi of the one political party named the Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular) has already been discussed in details in the preceding paragraphs of the instant order. It can be safely presumed that the modus operandi of other political party named Kisan party of India is also indulging only in providing accommodation entry as can be ascertained from various newspaper reports and enquiries which is being conducted by various institutions.

In view of the findings in the above case I am inclined to agree with the decision made by the AO during the assessment proceedings regarding the donation made was basically a bogus donation as the Political Party is indulging only in providing accommodation entry. Thus in view of the above discussion, the submission made by the appellant regarding the claim of deduction for donation of Rs.

1.13.51,000/- to be allowed is not acceptable as already discussed in detail in the preceding Paras of the instant order. Therefore, the ground of appeal stands dismissed.”

5. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal:

1. The learned National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and facts by confirming the disallowance of claim for deduction under section 80GGC of the Act of Rs.1,13,51,000/- made by the learned A.O. and therefore the learned A.O. be directed to allow the same while computing total income.

2. That the appellant craves liberty to add, amend and alter any ground of appeal before the final hearing.

6. Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee filed same set of documents filed before the Assessing Officer and reiterated its submissions. Nothing new documents or evidences filed before us to deviate from the findings of the Lower Authorities. The Ld AO has clearly brought out facts that bank accounts of above political parties have been used by the accommodation entry provider, where the donation received by cheques were layered through various bank accounts and ultimately cash was returned back. The same is not disputed by the assessee with relevant materials. Further the Ld AO made a detailed enquiry of RSP and its Bank accounts and transfer of funds to one Shri Mukesh Mehta proprietor of two firms and he transferred it to Waheguru Enterprise and Sapan Traders, which is clearly a systematic financial maneuver to legitimate illicit moneys and evade taxes. In the absence of any fresh materials in support of the assessee’s claim. The Grounds raised by the assessee is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.”

8. It is found that similar issue stands adjudicated by the Co-ordinate benches of this Tribunal in the cases of :-

(i)

Mihir Bipinbhai Parekh v. DCIT [IT Appeal No. 1173 (Mum) of 2026, dated 12-5-2026],

(ii)

Milind Pankajbhai Shroff v. Pr. CIT [IT Appeal No.93 (RJT) of 2023, dated 20-05-2024], Ritesh Sugan Jain v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 8546 (Mum) of 2025, dated 27-4-2026],

(iii)

Rajen Jayantilal Merchant v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 1683 (Ahd) of 2025],

9. For the sake of ready reference, the detailed adjudication in the case of Milind Pankajbhai Shroff,(supra) is reproduced as under :-

“22. Now, we shall also adjudicate the other arguments advanced by Id. DR for the revenue to the effect that “fraud vitiates everything”. In this connection, at the cost of repetition, we reiterate the findings of Id PCIT, which are as follows:

(i)

Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular) is a Registered Unrecognized Political Party and it is one of the 23 RUPPs covered in the RUPPs Group of Ahmedabad. This party was established on 21.10.2008 and its registered address as per its website is Samruddhi Complex, Opp- Sakar-3, Income Tax Circle, Ahmedabad. However, during pre-search enquiry, no party office is found at the aforesaid address.

(ii)

The modus-operandi of this political party is that the donation is received through cheque in the bank account of the party and then routed through intermediary(ies) (which is generally shell entity(ies) controlled by either the persons running the party or by any other person) in the garb of various purchases or other payments, which are found to be bogus in nature. It is pertinent to mention here that the political party doesn’t pay any tax since it is exempt u/s 13A of the Act.

(iii)

During the search proceedings, on 07.09.2022, statement on oath u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act, was recorded of Smt. Sandhya Singh, National Party President of the Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular). As evident from the declaration made on oath by Smt. Sandhya Singh that although she is national party president of the party, however, all the work related with party is being looked-after by her husband Shri Bishwajeet Singh. She was not aware about any activity of the party. Further, vide Q. No. 18 and 19, she was categorically asked regarding details of bank accounts, books of accounts, nature and quantum of the expenditures of the Rashtriya, Samajwadi Party. In reply to the same, she again stated that she is not aware of any details regarding these subjects. She stated that all these things are being handled by her husband Shri Bishwajeet Singh.

(iv)

It is on record that statement of Shri Bishwajeet Singh, on oath u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act, was recorded on 07.09.2022. During the statement proceedings, Shri Bishwajeet Singh admitted the fact that on his instance, his wife Smt. Sandhya Singh joined RSP, as president. During the statement proceedings, Shri Bishwajeet Singh revealed that the party i.e. RSP is involved in bogus donations scam across India and founder of party i.e. Shri Surya Nath Chaturvedi carried out bogus donations scam since inception of the party. He further stated that after deducting certain commission donations are being returned to the donors.

(v)

Furthermore, Shri Bishwajeet Singh stated that these affairs are also being the handled by the Shri Ritesh Shah. Shri Bishwajit Singh submitted list of some bogus entities used for cash generation, which is reproduced by Id PCIT on page number 13 of his order.

(vi)

During the post search inquiries, statement of Shri Amitkumar Chaturvedi (AHLPC7736R), past president of political party was also recorded, he categorically admitted that the party was engaged in bogus donations scam.

(vii)

It is relevant to refer to the fact that on verification with the website of regional Chief Electoral Officer where the party is registered i.e. CEO, Gujarat State, it has been found that Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular) has not filed any contribution report, since F.Y. 2013-14 onward.

(viii)

The party been claiming wrong and invalid exemption, over the years under section 13A of the I.T. Act but it has also been, mentioning in its Income Tax Return of F.Y. 2018-19 that no contribution report has been filed u/s 29C of the R.P. Act, 1951.

(ix)

Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular) is not registered, as of today, as informed by Id Counsel for the assessee, with Election Commission of India/R.P. Act, 1951.

(x)

There is no retraction of statements given by Smt. Sandhay Singh, Shri Bishwajeet Singh and Shri Amit Kumar, hence their statements are correct and valid.

On analysis of gathered data of the conducted search, it was learnt that these RUPP’s are either not carrying out any sort of genuine political or social activity or they are carrying out such activities to project themselves as genuine parties. However, in reality these political parties are being used as a vehicle of accommodation entries under the garb of political activities. The biggest advantage of creating a facade of a political party to propagate the accommodation entry scam is the fact that the income of political party is completely exempt from taxation as long as conditions laid down in section 13A of the Act, are satisfied. The persons making donations to such organizations, at the same time received back the donations made by them in the form of cash after deduction of certain percentage of commission. By this way, the assessee i.e. the donor becomes eligible for the deduction u/s 80GGC of the Act and evades the income tax liability by claiming 100% deduction on donated amount irrespective of his/her ITR. Further, In the light of disclosures made by Shri Suryanath Chaturvedi the former president and founder member of RSP (Secular), it is an established fact the Rashtriya Samajwadi Party has been formed to carry out bogus donations scam and bogus donation activities are being carried out from the inception of the party. All the party presidents from the inception have admitted that the RUPP is involved in the bogus donation scam. Moreover, Umapati IT Solution is a paper entity and has been used for layering of bogus donation received in the bank accounts of RSP(Secular).

23. From the above facts, it is abundantly clear that donation received by “Rashtriya Samajwadi Party” is bogus. The assessee has claimed deduction under Section 80GGC of the Act, and 80G(5) of the Act, which is also bogus and to that extent Assessment Order passed by assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. There is a saying that The ‘tail’ cannot wag the ‘dog’. When there is a fraud, then the details and documents submitted by the assessee, before the assessing officer, during the assessment proceedings, do not assist the assessee in any manner, that is, the assessee cannot take the plea that he has submitted enough documents and details before the assessing officer and assessing officer has taken the plausible view. For that reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Pune, in the case of Abhishek Ashok Lohade in ITA No.816/pUN/2018, order dated 22.11.2022.

From the above facts and relying on the decision cited above, it is abundantly clear that donation received by “Rashtriya Samajwadi Party” is bogus. The assessee has claimed deduction under Section 80GGC of the Act, which is also bogus and to that extent the assessment order passed by assessing officer in disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80GGC to the tune of Rs.xxxxx/- is upheld.”

10. It is now well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal v. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC)) that the taxing authorities are not required to put on blinkers while examining a transaction merely because it is supported by documentary evidence. They are entitled to look beyond the apparent, examine the surrounding circumstances, apply the test of human probabilities and ascertain the real nature of the transaction. Where the cumulative facts and attending circumstances establish that the apparent is not the real, the Revenue is justified in drawing an inference based on the preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, the investigation material, statements recorded under section 132(4), bank trail analysis and the established modus operandi of the recipient political party constitute a complete chain of circumstances which overwhelmingly demonstrate that the impugned donation was merely an accommodation entry and not a genuine contribution eligible for deduction under section 80GGC of the Act.

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the material brought on record by the Revenue, the findings emerging from the investigation and respectfully following the consistent view taken by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal in identical matters, we hold that the assessee has failed to establish that the impugned contribution represented a genuine donation eligible for deduction under section 80GGC of the Act. 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 decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR are distinguishable on facts and do not advance the case of the assessee. Therefore, no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) affirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.