IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5504/Mum/2025 A.Ys: 2019-20 A.Ys: 2019-20 A.Ys: 2019-20 A.Ys: 2019-20 A.Ys: 2019-20 A.Ys: 2019-20 A.Ys: 2019-20 Assessee by Shri Sudhir Thorat Revenue by Shri V.K Chaturvedi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.01.2026 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

These appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned order dated 12.06.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2019-20. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. That the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.2,00,000/- claimed under Section

80GGC despite:

Donation being made by account payee banking channel, Political party being duly registered under Section 29A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and Documentary evidence (receipt, PAN, registration certificate) being furnished.

3. That the learned authorities erred in disregarding binding precedents where donations to political parties through banking channel were held eligible for deduction under Section 80GGC:

ACIT vs. Armee Infotech - ITAT Ahmedabad, 2018 The ITAT Ahmedabad upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that once the political party is registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, and payment is not in cash, the donor isn't liable to verify how the party uses the funds. Deduction under Section 80GGC should, therefore, be allowed.

Sri Deepak Mittal Vijayawada vs. ACIT, ITAT, 2019 The ITAT held that the law only requires registration under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, and not recognition. Since the donation was made by cheque, and required documentation (receipt, Form 24A, registration proof) was provided, the disallowance was reversed.

4. That the disallowance is based on conjectures and surmises without any contrary evidence produced by the Department.

5. That the appellant, being a salaried person, had no motive to inflate deductions, and the donation was made in good faith.

6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, or amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.

2. At the very outset, I noticed that there is delay of 2 days in filing the present appeal and in this regard Ld. AR explained the circumstances before the bench because of which the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal before the ITAT.

3. On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contentions of the assessee and requested for dismissal of the appeal as the same is time barred.

4. Considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view, the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji& Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC),wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non-deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore I condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.

5. Ground No. 1 to 6 all the grounds raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance claimed u/s 80GGC of the Act. Therefore I have decided to adjudicate these grounds through the present consolidated order.

6. Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee reiterated the same arguments as were raised by him before the revenue