TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 608
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er referred to as 'the Act' in short) for Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of Appeal:- "1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case, in rejecting the appeal on ground than no substantive evidence like receipt of donation, registration Certificate etc. were furnished. 2. The Id CIT(A) has erred in Confirming levy of penalty of Rs. 62400/- without providing opportunity of hearing to appellant. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise." 3. Brief facts of the case are that In this case, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s. 270A, against the assessee for the Assessment Year 2019-20. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd dismissed the appeal of the Assessee holding that the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the donation or to demonstrate the full compliance with limited conditions u/s 80GCC of the Act. It was further held that withdrawal of claim after initiation of re-assessment proceeding u/s 148 of the Act does not mitigate the furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the original return. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Ld. AR appearing for the Assessee contended that the Assessee had made the deduction through proper banking channels and the claim was made in good faith and, therefore, no mesne rea can be attributed to the Assessee. It was further submitted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....used the material on record. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Hiro Mulchand Tanwani (supra). For the sake of ready reference, the relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under: "...3. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, contending that the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80GGC as a case of "misreporting of income." The facts reveal that the assessee had filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2019-20 declaring total income of Rs. 13,25,710 after claiming deduction of Rs. 1,50,000 under Section 80GGC in respect of donation made to a p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lse entries, or failure to report receipts. In the present case, the assessee had duly disclosed the donation in the return of income and claimed deduction under Section 80GGC based on the belief that the payment qualified for deduction. The disallowance arose because the Assessing Officer was not satisfied about the genuineness or eligibility of the donation. However, there is no material on record to establish that the assessee had furnished any false evidence, suppressed any facts, or made any deliberate misrepresentation. A claim of deduction made in the return, even if ultimately found to be inadmissible, does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the assessee has misreported income. Unless the Revenue demonstrates with cogent ....