Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 819 - HC - Income TaxLegality of notice u/s 133(6) [exhibit P1] - societies were required to furnish the details of entire cash deposits in savings bank accounts where the aggregate cash deposit is rupees five lakhs and above in an year for the last three previous years - Power of Income-tax officer (Intelligence), to issue such notice - Held that:- The authority who issued exhibit P1 under section 120(2) of the Income-tax Act by notification dated August 19, 2011, at Sl. No. 18 is the Director of Income-tax, having head quarters at Kochi, Kerala, who has jurisdiction over the area within the State of Kerala, Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Minicoy. He has all powers envisaged under the Income-tax Act related to and in connection with collection, collation, verification and dissemination of information in respect of the area over which he has jurisdiction. By office order dated November 1, 2011, the Income- tax Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, Alappuzha, Kochi and Thrissur were authorised to function as Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) of the above three places. Letter dated September 2, 2013, is issued by the Director of Income-tax (Intelligence) to the above Income-tax Officers (Intelligence) authorising them to issue notices to co-operative banks/urban co-operative banks/credit co-operative societies coming under the respective jurisdiction calling for information as contemplated under section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act. By virtue of these documents, the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) is the authorised person who could issue exhibit P1, therefore After referring to section 133(6) of the Act, prior to the introduction of the second proviso and its effect and after the introduction of the second proviso to section 133(6), their Lordships opined that there was no scope for interfering with validity of notices. In the light of the dictum laid down in Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. Secretary, Government of India [2002 (2) TMI 1285 - SUPREME COURT] there is no much scope for considering the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, according to whom, Kathiroor Co-operative Bank's case [2013 (11) TMI 728 - SUPREME COURT] has no application. Also it clearly indicate what exactly section 133(6) subsequent to the introduction of the second proviso would mean, thus to concluded that notices issued under section 133(6) are justified. it is in the nature of general enquiry by the authorities in order to ascertain whether any person who has taxable income has failed to comply with the provisions of the Act. Definitely, it is not with reference to constitution of appellant-societies and its functioning or any disputes between the society and its members. If the subject matter of information attracts any of the matters which has to be considered under the Co-operative Societies Act, then alone the argument of the appellants is meaningful, otherwise the said argument has no legs to stand. The information sought is under section 133(6) and has nothing to do with any of the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. - Decided against assessee.
|