Shri Avnish Bansal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3-1, Jaipur
In the result, the penalty so levied in both the cases is hereby directed to be deleted
ITA 589/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Dec 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Soni (CA)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F
…not attracted, and therefore, the CIT(A) is “justified in deleting the penalty, which we confirm, and the ground of the Revenue is dismissed.” Shri Avnish Bansal & Shri Ashutosh Bansal, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur • Devi Dass Sukhani vs. Income-tax Officer [2006] 101 TTJ 551 (Jodh) “The undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee had withdrawn the deduction allowed in the asst. yr. 1999-2000 and had claimed the same again in this year under s. 54 of the act. This is a case of deduction having been claimed under a bonafide misconception and belief. There seen to be no evidence on record, which can establish any…