Case Law Details
Joison Kundu Kulam Johny Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Assessee submitted that his case was mishandled by one Mr. Nagesh Shastry, Income Tax Practitioner, who has been indulging in claim of fraudulent refunds by fictitious claim of deductions, which was unearthed by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. It was submitted that without the knowledge of assessee, Mr. Nagesh Shastry has filed revised return and all requisite password, etc. was kept with him and by giving the mobile number of Mr. Nagesh Shastry only. It was submitted that the Mobile no. & email address given to the department in original return and revised return were different, which can be looked into so as to see the veracity of the assessee’s statement. Further it was submitted that the entire refund issued is recovered back by the income-tax authorities by way of attaching bank account of assessee. According to the Id. AR. there was no fault of assessee in filing the revised return so as to claim the fraudulent refund. The entire issue of claim of fraudulent refund is by Mr. Nagesh Shastry only and the assessee was bonafide in his action and there was no fault from the assessee’s side.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 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.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 01.04.2021 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2015-16. In this appeal, the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(A) whereby the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO imposing penalty on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
