TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ligence) u/s 133(6) of the Act it is of the view that the order imposing penalty cannot be quashed. - Decided against assessee - ITA No. 332/Coch/2017 - - - Dated:- 5-1-2018 - Shri George George K, Judicial Member Appellant by : Ms. Mekhala M.Benny Respondent by : Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR ORDER This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the CIT(A) s order dated 20.03.2017. The relevant assessment years are 2011-2012, 2012-2013 2013-2014. The order of the CIT(A) arises out of the order passed u/s 272A(2)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income-tax Act. 2. There was a delay of 41 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condoning the delay and also the affidavit of the Managing Director of the assessee stating the reasons for the delay in filing this appeal. 2.1 I have perused the affidavit filed by the Managing Director of the assessee. I find that the delay in filing this appeal cannot attributed to any latches on the part of the assessee. In other words, there is no willful or contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee and the delay in filing this appeal was caused due to the reasons beyond the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. On his showing, notice is calling upon the Appellant to produce the details and therefore, the same cannot be construed as show cause under Sec.272 A (4). D. The entire proceedings are hopelessly time barred under Sec.275(1)(c). Proceedings under Sec.272A(2) have to be completed within the period of six months. On their own showing, the order is dated 27.11.2014. The last notice served is dated 22.1.2014 and therefore the proceedings are hopelessly time barred. For these and other grounds and documents to be submitted at the time of hearing and it is humbly prayed that the Tribunal be pleased to allow the appeal. 4.1 The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that no notice u/s 274 of the Income-tax Act was served on the assessee and hence the penalty imposed is to be quashed. 4.2 The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand submitted that the notice u/s 274 was issued and served on the assessee on 23.10.2014. It was further contended by the learned DR that the assessee has not raised the issue of non-service of notice for initiating penalty before any of the authorities below. On merits, the learned DR submitted that the Cochin Bench of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Director or the Commissioner, as the case may be. The said amendment was brought about as a measure to tackle tax evasion effectively, as clarified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular no. 717 dated 14.8.1995, which reads as follows: Power to call for information when no proceeding is pending. - ... 41.2 At present the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 133 empower Income-tax authorities to call for information which is useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the Act which means that these provisions can be invoked only in cases where the proceedings are pending and not otherwise. This acts as a limitation or a restraint on the capability of the Department to tackle evasion effectively. It is, therefore, thought necessary to have the power to gather information which after proper enquiry, will result in initiation of proceedings under the Act. 41.3 With a view to having a clear legal sanction, the existing provisions to call for information have been amended. Now, the income- tax authorities have been empowered to requisition information which will be useful for or relevant to any enquiry or proceedings under the Income-tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of more than ₹ 1,00,000. 21. Therefore, we hold that the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in its conclusion that for such enquiry under section 133(6) the notice could be validly issued by the assessing authority. 22. In view of the above, the appeal requires to be dismissed and accordingly, stands dismissed. 8.3 In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra) and the aforesaid reasoning, I am of the view that the ITO (Intelligence) has jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 133(6) of the I Tact (ii) the order passed u/s 272A(2)(c) is barred by limitation: 8.4 Section 275(1)(c) of the Act prescribed the time limit for imposition of penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) of the I T Act Section 275(1)(c) of the I T Act, reads as follows: 275(1) ....................................... . (c) in any other case after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. 8.5 Admittedly, penalty procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
