9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Deepesh Jain , CA and Sh. Shaurya Jain , CA Department by : Shri Anuj Garg , Sr. D. R ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U. S. , JM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 10/10/2017 passed by CIT(A)-35,, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] erred on facts and in law in directing levy of penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") in respect of disallowance of Rs. 10,67,160 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non-deduction of tax at source under sectionl94C of the Act from payment made for supply of water allegedly holding that the appellant furnished inaccurate particulars ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 40a(ia) and disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80G of Rs. 7,027/- have been sustained. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that, in order to buy peace and to avoid litigation, not preferred appeal on the above issues. The Department, however, challenged the order of CIT(A) for grant substantial relief to the assessee in ITA No. 1523/Del/2015, the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has dismissed the Appeal of the Revenue 21/05/2020. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that, the assessee has already paid the tax along with the applicable interest the assessee has not committed any concealment to initiate the penalty. 4. Per contra, the Ld. DR has relied on the order of the CIT(A). 5. We have heard the parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to : Rs.14,054 Total : Rs.45,054 After the assessment order disallowed the aforesaid deduction on the ground that, no documentary evidence were filed, the CIT(A) allowed the deduction qua donation of Rs. 31,000/- (deduction of Rs. 15,000/-) considering the receipt submitted by the assessee. However, disallowed the deduction to the extent of Rs.7,027/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the aforesaid donation of Rs. 15,054/- were on account of small/penny donations. Therefore, could not produce the receipt for the same and submitted that, penalty could not be levied merely because of the receipt on the said donations could not be located and furnished. We do agree with the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
