Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: human errors in Iskander Atlaf Lalljee, Gurgaon vs Dcit Circle 52(1), New Delhi on 25 September, 2024Matching Fragments
AY: 2017-18 AY: 2018-19 Reply dated 08.11.2019 (Page 27-28) Reply dated 11.12.2020 (Page 50-52) Deductions u/s 80G claimed in excess The claim on donations it appears have of 10% of Adjusted Gross total Income errors and while filling the data in the
has been claimed inadvertently, it is a Income Tax Return (ITR) in the Schedule clerical mistake at the time of filling 80G: the ROW B. Donations entitled for the ITR The mistake is a bonafide 50% deduction without qualifying limit human error, with no intention to has been used instead of D. Donations conceal income or file inaccurate entitled for 50% deduction subject to particulars. qualifying.
It is a clerical mistake at the time of filling the ITR. The mistake is a bonafide human error, with no intention to 3 conceal income or file inaccurate particulars. The ITR forms are complex and lengthy and it requires high skills to understand and put figures in the correct row of the schedule, in such scenario human errors are possible.
9. Accordingly, Learned AO computed the eligible deduction under Section 80G of the Act, and disallowed the inadvertent excess deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act.
10. Under this circumstances it was submitted that since the error, was bonafide human error as such same was accepted by the assessee and due taxes were also paid and no appeal have been filed by the appellant, it cannot be said to a case of under reporting of income in any manner and further that as the assessee disclosed all material facts as such in view of the provision of Section P a g e |8 ITA Nos.294 & 295/Del/2023 Iskander Altaf Lalljee Vs. DCIT, Circle 52(1) 270A(6)(a) of the Act no penalty is leviable under Section 270A of the Act.