TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat if he had voluntarily returned the amount, he could have proved the benefits - The imposition of penalty does not suffer from any error of law - Decided against assessee. - Income Tax Appeal Defective No. - 134 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 28-8-2012 - Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani And Hon'ble Aditya Nath Mittal,JJ. For the Petitioner : Suyash Agrawal For the Respondent : A. N. Mahajan /C.S.C ORDER We have heard Shri Suyash Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.K. Upadhyay appears for the department. This income tax appeal has been preferred on the following substantial questions of law:- "(A) Whether on the facts of the case the I.T.A.T. was correct to confirm the penalty for not making full and true disclosure of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hown in Form No.16, and as such it was proposed that the claim of refund be rectified by disallowing the same. The appellant assessee took a stand that he was cheated by his counsel, who got his signatures on the blank return and claimed refund of interest on housing loan without his knowledge. The CIT (A) has made pertinent observations, which have been quoted by the Tribunal as follows:- "The facts of the case and the submissions of the ld. A.R. have been considered. The undisputed facts are that the assessee had made a claim of Rs.2,62,000/- towards housing loan interest. It is also a fact that this claim could have been made before the DDO also, whereas before him, the claim was only for Rs.5,715/-. This is also an undisputed fact t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing forged documents, as it has happened in number of cases and the cases against that advocate are being investigated by the CBI. There is also force in the submissions that the gullible assessees generally having faith in their counsels put signatures on the forms and believe that the counsel would not do any thing, which would harm their interest, and in such matters, the benefit of doubt should go to the assessee. In view of the above, there being a reasonable cause and the fault being attributable to the counsel, there was no case for levy of penalty under section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and hence the same is cancelled." In appeal filed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (4), Meerut, the Income Tax Appellate Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also submitted that the fact that the assessee voluntarily returned the amount to the Department goes to prove; his bona-fies. This argument fails to impress us. Undeniably, it was only when the assessee was cornered and he did not have any way out, that the assessee returned the amount." We are not impressed by the submission that the assessee, thereafter, surrendered the claim and has paid tax on it. The Tribunal has rightly found that if he had voluntarily returned the amount, he could have proved the benefits. The imposition of penalty does not suffer from any error of law. The ITAT has considered the facts in detail and returned findings of fact on which the questions of law as framed do not aris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
