IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUM AR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1927/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

Appellant represented by : Shri S.N. Divatia, AR &

Shri Samir Vora, AR Respondent represented by: Shri Virbhadra Vishalavat, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

O R D E R

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 31.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2019-20.

2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :-

“.1.1 The order passed by U/s.250 passed on 31-07-2025 for A.Y. 2019 20 by NFAC [CIT(A)], Delhi for short CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of Rs.5,00,000/ u/s 80GGC treating the impugned donation as bogus is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice.

2.1 The Id. CIT(A), has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not appreciating that the impugned donation to the said political party was believed to be genuine by the appellant in view of the documentary evidence furnished to him and as such the disallowance of Rs. 5,00,000/- was not justified.

3.1 The Id.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the reopening of assessment which was illegal and unlawful because the condition precedent for valid reopening were not satisfied.

3.2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the Id. CITIA), ought not to have upheld the impugned donation as bogus and thereby upholding disallowance of Rs.5,00,000/- u/s 80GGG

3.3 The Id. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the impugned donation as bogus without providing the material/evidence relied upon him as well as allowing the opportunity of cross examination of the concerned parties.

4.0 The Id. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the re-opening u/s 147 was illegal and unlawful since the condition precedent were not satisfied.”

3. The undisputed facts of the case are that a notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued on 20.04.2023 for escapement of income on account of donation paid to a non- genuine political party of Rs.5,00,000/-. The assessment year before us is AY 2019-20 and the assessee filed return u/s 139(1) of the Act on 27.08.2019, declaring total income of Rs.25,59,370/-. The applicable provisions of the Income-tax Act as on

20.04.2023 reads as under:-

“149. Time limit for notice (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,一 (a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b);

(b) if three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of-

(1) an asset;

(ii) expenditure in respect of a transaction or in relation to an event or occasion; or (ii) an entry or entries in the books of account, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more:

Provided that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before Ist day of April, 2021, if a notice under section 148 or section 153A or section 153C could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of this section or section 153A or section 153C, as the case may be, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act,