TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been submitted or whether TDS has been deducted subsequently. Other than filing appeals and not representing the same, nor giving explanation in respect of the grounds raised only delay tactics are being adopted. No reasonable cause has also been shown. By no stretch of imagination can it be even presumed that the assessee did not know of the decision of Kathiroor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. [ 2013 (11) TMI 728 - SUPREME COURT] nor is it a plausible explanation that the assessee is exempt from deducting TDS in the absence of any order thereto - such contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee is liable to be dealt with harshly - orders of the learned CIT(A) and that of the AO are liable to be upheld and penalty levied under Section 272A(2)(c) of the Act is liable to be confirmed. - Decided in favour of revenue. - ITA No. 308/Coch/2020 - - - Dated:- 5-11-2020 - Shri George Mathan, Judicial Member For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Ms. J.M. Jamuna Devi ORDER This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A), Kottayam dated 17.02.2020 for ay 2015-16. 2. In the appeal the assessee has raised the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 21 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for delay of 15 days. In the affidavit the assessee submits that it had filed an appeal before the CIT(A) Kottayam and the same was disposed off on 17.02.2020 and the assessee received the appellate order on 15.05.2020 through e-mail. The appeal has been filed by the assessee by post and the same has been registered on 10.08.2020. The assessee has been intimated regarding the defect vide notice dated 30.09.2020. The assessee has filed a revised affidavit for condonation of delay of 21 days. In both the affidavits the reason for delay is the same being that the Tax Consultant could not attend to the matter due to outbreak of Covid-19 and lock down announced by the Government. In any case it is noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has suspended the Limitation Act from March, 2020 and has recognised the problem caused due to the Covid pandemic in respect of filing of appeals. The Limitation Act stands suspended as on today also. Consequently I accept the reason given by the assessee and condone the delay in filing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. 17. ITA No. 200/Coch/2017 : Edarikode Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. 18. ITA No. 198/Coch/2017 : Ananthavoor Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. 19. ITA No. 202/Coch/2017 : Marakkara Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. 20. ITA No. 201/Coch/2017 : Ariyallur Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. 21. ITA No. 217/Coch/2017 : Edathala Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. 22. ITA No. 324/Coch/2017 : Enanallor Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. 23. ITA No. 284/Coch/2017 : Cheranallur Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. 2. Copies of these orders are provided to both sides in the interest of natural justice to give them an opportunity to make submissions in respect of the same. Final opportunity is being granted to the assessee by adjourning the matter to 3rd November, 2020. The defect memo issued to the assessee has also not been replied to. 5. The appeal was adjourned to 3rd November, 2020. Again none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was adjourned to 4th November, 2020. Again on account of non representation by the assessee the appeal was adjourned to 5th November, 2020. In the interest of natural justice copies of the orders by which the issue raised by the assessee in its appeal stood covered was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same, nor giving explanation in respect of the grounds raised only delay tactics are being adopted. No reasonable cause has also been shown. This being so, respectfully following the decisions in the cases referred above wherein it has been categorically held by the Coordinate SMC in the case of Kakoor Service Co- Operative Bank Ltd. as under 8 I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. From the grounds raised and the argument note submitted by the assessee, I am of the view that three contentions are raised by the assessee in this appeal; namely; (i) ITO (Intelligence) does not have jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 133(6) of the I T Act; (ii) the order passed u/s 272A(2)(c) is barred by limitation; (iii) there was reasonable cause, as mentioned in section 273B of the Act for non furnishing information sought u/s 133(6); therefore, penalty u/s 272A(2) ( c) of the I T Act is to be quashed. 8.1 I shall take up for adjudication each of the above three contentions as under: i) ITO (Intelligence) does not have jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 133(6) of the I T Act; Section 133(6) of the I T Act 1961 is unambiguous and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present. However, an Income-tax authority below the rank of the Director or Commissioner can exercise this power in respect of an inquiry in a case where no proceeding is pending, only with the prior approval of the Director or the Commissioner. 8.2 In the instant case, notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued by the ITO (Intelligence) after obtaining necessary approval from the Director of Income Tax (Intelligence). The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kathiroor Service Co-op Bank Ltd vs CIT (CIB) others, reported in 360 ITR 243 have considered an identical case and decided that the ITO(CIB) has power to issue notice u/s 133(6) of the I T Act. The relevant findings of the Hon ble Supreme Court, read as follows: 19. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the powers under section 133(6) are in the nature of survey and a general enquiry to identify persons who are likely to have taxable income and whether they are in compliance with the provisions of the Act. It would not fall under the restricted domains of being area specific or case specific . Section 133(6) does not refer to any enquiry about any particular person or assessee, but pertains to inform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prescribed u/s 275(1)(c ) of the Act. The Judgment of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court, relied on by the ld AR of the assessee, in the case of CIT vs Sri Jithendra Singh Rathore, is not applicable to the facts of the instance case. In the case considered by the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court the penalty proceedings u/s 271D was initiated by issuing notice on 25.3.2003 and the penalty order was passed only on 30.9.2003 by which time, six months period mentioned u/s 275(1)(c ) had already expired. The contention of the ld AR that notice issued u/s 133(6) should be reckoned for considering the time limit u/s 275(1)( c) of the Act is de-void of any merits; because Section 275(1)( c) prescribes the time limit only from the date of initiation of penalty proceedings; namely issuance of notice u/s 274 of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons, I hold that the order passed by the Jt Director of Income Tax (Intelligence) is a valid order. (iii) there was reasonable cause, as mentioned in section 273B of the Act for non furnishing information sought u/s 133(6); therefore, penalty u/s 272A(2) ( c) of the I T Act is to be quashed: 8.6 The assessee has not offered any valid reason for not f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
