2022 (3) TMI 900 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - claim of fraudulent refund - as per AO assessee has willfully furnished inaccurate particulars - HELD THAT - In the quantum proceedings, the assessee accepted the addition because he was misled by Mr. Nagesh Shastry who was instrumental in fling the revised return of the assessee making false claims. However, the same facts and arguments in the penalty proceedings are not considered. In our opinion, it is proper to examine whether Mr. Nagesh Shastry is instrumental in claiming fraudulent refund on behalf of assessee by indulging in malpractices. If Mr. Nagesh Shastry is found solely responsible for such fraudulent act and that assessee's act is bonafide, penalty cannot be levied. With these observations. we remand this issue to the file of the CIT(Appeals) to consider all these facts and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after affording assessee opportunity of being heard. Appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2015-16.

Analysis:
1. The assessee, a salaried employee, filed a revised return for AY 2015-16, claiming a refund. Subsequently, a search action revealed fraudulent activities by a Tax Consultant, including filing false returns for the assessee. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 147 based on this information.

2. The assessee, upon receiving notice u/s 148, filed a return of income declaring higher income and paid the demand raised by the AO. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated, and the AO imposed a penalty, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed against this order before the Tribunal.

3. The assessee contended that the Tax Consultant was solely responsible for the fraudulent activities, and the assessee was unaware of the false claims made in the revised return. The DR argued that the assessee was complicit in the fraudulent refund claim.

4. The Tribunal observed that while the assessee accepted the addition in the quantum proceedings due to being misled by the Tax Consultant, the penalty proceedings did not consider this aspect. It directed the issue to be remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering all facts and providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need to reevaluate the penalty imposition in light of the Tax Consultant's fraudulent activities and the assessee's bonafide intentions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal remanded the penalty issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, considering the role of the Tax Consultant in the fraudulent activities and the assessee's lack of knowledge regarding the false claims made in the revised return. The appeal by the assessee was treated as allowed for statistical purposes, highlighting the importance of fair assessment and due process in penalty proceedings under the Income Tax Act.