Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 871 - HC - Income TaxIncome-tax Officer (Intelligence) authority to issue notice u/s 133(6) - Jurisdiction of Income Tax Authorities u/s 120 - Whether the notice under section 133(6) issued by the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) is valid prior to Notification No. 77 of 2014 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes on the delegation of power dated December 10, 2014 ? - Whether the 'Inquiry' under section 133(6) in the absence of an 'enquiry' under any of the provisions of the Act, conducted by the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) is right in the eye of law ? - HELD THAT:- As relying on Kodur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. DIT (Intelligence) [2015 (2) TMI 819 - KERALA HIGH COURT] 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, the allegation that the officer who issued exhibit P1 had no authority has to be rejected. Then coming to section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, in Kathiroor Service Co-operative Bank's case (supra), various co-operative societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act engaged in banking business were before this court when notices were issued to the societies under section 133(6) of the Act calling for particulars of cash transaction above rupees one lakh with details of account holders/deposit holders in the format prepared by the authority issuing the notices. The societies challenged the validity of the notices. 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." From the reliance on the notification dated November 1, 2011, it is decipherable that the power of collection, collation and dissemination which earlier vested with Central Information Branch was transferred to Income-tax Officer (Intelligence), which would not mean that the notices issued and imposition of penalty by the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) lacked jurisdiction.
|