TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax element of refund has been provided in Form No. 26AS issued to the assessee. Therefore, as per page no. 10 & 11 of the paper book the assessee has made working of interest receivable on the refund on estimated basis as per the material on record. In respect of difference of ₹ 6,844/- in contractual receipt it is noticed that as per actual contract the total contract receipt was to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DivyaAgarwal, ARs For the Respondent : Somugyan Pal, Sr.DR ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH - AM: The solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is against the order of CIT(A) Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad in confirming the penalty of ₹ 66,694/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, in respect of disallowance ₹ 51,960, ₹ 1,57,032 and ₹ 6,884 made in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r reporting of interest on income tax refund of ₹ 1,57,032/-, assessee has explained that the bifurcation of interest and amount of tax refund was not provided, therefore, there was error in showing of correct interest amount received on income tax refund. In respect of addition of ₹ 6,844/- on account of contract receipt the assessee explained that sum has occurred on account of minor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest amount and tax amount refunded to the assessee. He has also stated that there is a minor difference on account of contractual receipt and there is no element of concealment. 5. On the other hand the Ld. DR has placed reliance on the order of CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. With the assistance of the Ld. Representatives we have gone through the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in the account of the contractee R B Department of Gujarat is not a case of furnishing inaccurate particular of income. In the light, of the above facts and circumstances and non-availability of separate calculation of interest on refund and other technical fault as explained above. We consider that Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) levied by the AO. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
