Political donations are permitted under the Income-tax Act, and genuine contributions to political parties or electoral trusts may qualify for deduction. However, the recent ITAT Mumbai decision in Ritesh Sugan Jain v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai, ITA No. 8546\/Mum\/2025, dated 27 April 2026<\/strong>, is a strong reminder that documentation alone is not enough<\/strong> when the surrounding facts show that the transaction is a sham.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case involved a deduction claim of \u20b99,90,000 under Section 80GGC<\/strong> in respect of donation made to Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular)<\/strong>, a Registered Unrecognized Political Party (RUPP). The Income Tax Department treated the donation as part of a bogus political donation accommodation-entry racket, and the Tribunal upheld the disallowance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For taxpayers facing scrutiny, reassessment or demand arising from similar claims, professional handling of the notice response is critical. You may refer to our services on Income Tax Notice & Demand Response<\/a>, ITR Filing & CPC Notice Reply<\/a>, and ITR-U \/ Updated Return Filing<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Section 80GGC allows deduction for contribution made by eligible persons to a political party or electoral trust. The Income Tax Department\u2019s own guidance states that deduction under Section 80GGC is available to any assessee other than a local authority or an artificial juridical person funded wholly or partly by the Government, for contribution to a political party or electoral trust. It also clearly states that cash contributions are not eligible<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In simple terms, the law encourages transparent political funding. But the deduction is available only when the contribution is real, genuine and legally compliant<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A payment through bank, donation receipt, PAN of the party, or registration certificate of the political party may support the claim, but they do not automatically prove genuineness if the transaction is otherwise found to be part of a tax-evasion arrangement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The assessee filed his return declaring total income of \u20b99,52,310<\/strong> and claimed deduction of \u20b99,90,000 under Section 80GGC<\/strong> for donation allegedly made to Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Based on information received from the Investigation Wing through the Insight portal, the Department found that the said political party was allegedly involved in a systematic bogus donation racket. According to the Department, donations were received through banking channels, routed through multiple layers, and returned to donors in cash after deducting commission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Proceedings under Section 148A<\/strong> were initiated. After considering the assessee\u2019s reply, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148<\/strong> on 20 April 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The reassessment was based heavily on search and seizure action conducted on 7 September 2022<\/strong> in relation to a group of Registered Unrecognized Political Parties at Ahmedabad. The investigation revealed that certain RUPPs were allegedly being used as vehicles for accommodation entries in the garb of political donations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Assessing Officer held that the donation was not genuine. The key findings were:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, the AO disallowed the entire deduction of \u20b99,90,000<\/strong> and added it back to the income of the assessee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The ITAT Mumbai upheld the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Tribunal observed that the facts were similar to earlier cases involving donations to the same political party. It noted that the investigation had revealed a systematic pattern where donations were accepted through banking channels and then routed back in cash to the donors after deducting commission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the public text of the order, the Tribunal noted that admissions from party presidents and related findings showed that the RUPP was involved in a bogus donation scam, and that a paper entity was allegedly used for layering of bogus donations received in the bank accounts of RSP (Secular). <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Tribunal further held that once the transaction is found to be fraudulent, the assessee cannot rely merely on receipts, bank statements or other documents. The Tribunal applied the principle that fraud vitiates everything<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Result: The assessee\u2019s appeal was dismissed, and the Section 80GGC deduction was denied.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A common misconception is that if payment is made by cheque, NEFT, RTGS or other banking mode, the deduction must be allowed. This decision shows otherwise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Tribunal looked at the substance of the transaction<\/strong>, not merely the form.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Where the investigation establishes that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n then banking-channel payment does not make the transaction genuine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In tax law, genuineness is not proved only by paperwork. The taxpayer must also satisfy the test of commercial reality, surrounding circumstances, human probability and actual substance<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Tribunal also referred to earlier findings in\u00a0Milind Pankajbhai Shroff v. Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot<\/a><\/strong>, where a similar donation to\u00a0Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular)<\/strong>\u00a0was examined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In that case, the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80GGC for a donation of \u20b930,00,000<\/strong> to the same party. The search findings revealed that the party allegedly received donations through cheque and returned cash after deducting commission. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Rajkot Bench noted that Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular) was one of the RUPPs covered in the Ahmedabad RUPP search group, and that the party\u2019s alleged modus operandi involved receiving donations through cheque and routing them through intermediary or shell entities in the garb of bogus purchases or payments. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This earlier decision became important because it supported the Department\u2019s stand that similar donation claims to the same party required deeper verification and could not be accepted merely on the basis of receipts and bank entries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Registered Unrecognized Political Parties have been under increasing scrutiny. The Election Commission of India has also been taking steps against non-compliant RUPPs. PIB reported that political parties are registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951<\/strong>, and that ECI had started proceedings to delist another 476 RUPPs as part of its effort to clean up the electoral system. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This broader regulatory environment is important for taxpayers because political donation claims are now likely to be matched with:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Therefore, taxpayers should not treat Section 80GGC as a simple deduction entry. It is a high-sensitivity claim where genuineness may be verified in detail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A valid receipt, bank payment and PAN details may be necessary, but they are not sufficient if the Department has contrary investigation material.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Any scheme promising tax saving by making political donation and receiving cash back is a clear tax-risk arrangement. It may lead to reassessment, addition, interest, penalty and even prosecution exposure depending on facts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Before claiming deduction, taxpayers should verify:<\/p>\n\n\n\n In such matters, a casual reply may not help. The response should address facts, evidence, source of funds, genuineness of donation, absence of cash-back arrangement, and legal position. For professional assistance, taxpayers may refer to Income Tax Notice & Demand Response Services<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If a taxpayer has made a wrong claim due to misunderstanding or reliance on an intermediary, the option of revised return, updated return or other corrective compliance should be examined based on the year, stage of proceedings and applicable law. You may refer to our page on ITR-U \/ Updated Return Filing<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n1. What Section 80GGC Allows<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n2. Facts of the Case<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n3. What the Assessing Officer Found<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
It was allegedly being used as a conduit for bogus donation entries.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
The AO observed that the banking trail was part of the arrangement and did not prove the substance of the transaction.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
Statements recorded during search indicated that donations were returned in cash after deduction of commission ranging from approximately 1.5% to 5%.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
Statements of key persons, including persons managing the party\u2019s operations, were relied upon to establish the bogus nature of the donation scheme.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n4. ITAT Mumbai\u2019s Decision<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n5. Why Banking Channel Payment Was Not Enough<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n6. Earlier Case Relied Upon: Milind Pankajbhai Shroff v. Pr. CIT<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n7. Wider Context: Scrutiny of RUPPs<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n8. Practical Lessons for Taxpayers<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A. Donation must be genuine, not merely documented<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
B. Avoid donation arrangements suggested by intermediaries<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
C. Check the political party before making donation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
D. Respond carefully to Section 148A \/ 148 notices<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
E. Consider voluntary correction where legally permissible<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n9. Key Takeaway from the Judgment<\/h2>\n\n\n\n