2007 (2) TMI 249 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Validity of the assessee's claim of housing loan interest.
3. The role of the assessee's counsel in filing the return and making false claims.
4. The assessee's conduct and response to various notices issued by the tax authorities.

Summary:

1. Legitimacy of the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act:
The Department appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which deleted the penalty of Rs. 2,60,364 imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer (AO) had noted discrepancies in the assessee's return, particularly a claim of housing loan interest of Rs. 2,62,000, which was not substantiated by evidence. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) after finding the claims to be bogus.

2. Validity of the assessee's claim of housing loan interest:
The AO discovered that the housing loan interest claimed by the assessee was significantly higher than what was shown in Form No. 16. The assessee admitted that the claim was incorrect and filed a revised return, reducing the housing loan interest claim to Rs. 5,715. The AO imposed a penalty, noting that the assessee had not surrendered the incorrect claim until compelled by the proceedings.

3. The role of the assessee's counsel in filing the return and making false claims:
The assessee argued that the false claim was made by his counsel, Shri Pankaj Garg, and that he had signed a blank return form in good faith. The CIT(A) accepted this argument, noting that the assessee had taken voluntary retirement and believed the refund was due to various deductions and reliefs. The CIT(A) found that the fault lay with the counsel and not the assessee, thus cancelling the penalty.

4. The assessee's conduct and response to various notices issued by the tax authorities:
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not surrender the incorrect claim when notices u/s 154 and 148 were issued and only responded when cornered by the authorities. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's conduct showed mala fide intention and that the argument of being misled by the counsel did not absolve him of liability. The Tribunal held that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was justified but should be levied at the minimum rate due to the involvement of the counsel.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and revived the AO's order, subject to the condition that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) be levied at the minimum chargeable rate. The appeal of the Department was partly allowed.