Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Engandiyur Farmers Service Co-op. Bank Limited C/o. Anil D. Nair & Associates Advocates The Addl. Director of Income-tax (I&CI) , Kochi.

2018 (1) TMI 591 - ITAT COCHIN

Penalty imposed u/s 272A(2)(c) - no valid reason for not furnishing the information called for u/s 133(6) - Held that:- On identical facts the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of Kakoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2018 (1) TMI 548 - ITAT COCHIN) had held that the penalty imposed u/s 272A(2)(c) of the Act is valid. The assessee has not offered any valid reason for not furnishing the information called for u/s 133(6) of the Act. Many of the notices issued by the ITO (Intelligence) wer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 orde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n 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 control of the assessee, hence, I condone the delay of 41 days and proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follow: 3.1 The assessee is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The assessee was served with notice u/s 133(6) of the Income-tax Act. The as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4 and imposed penalty of ₹ 29,300 being penalty payable at the rate of ₹ 100 per day from 08.02.2014 up to 27.11.2014 (the date of imposing penalty). 3.2 Aggrieved by the order of the imposition of penalty, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal raising the following grounds:- A. The order of the Commissioner of Income-t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2.2014. It is submitted that no notice whatsoever has been served on the Petitioner and therefore the proceedings are bad in law as being violative of the mandatory provisions of the Act. C. During the course of the appellate proceedings, it appears that remand report was sought for. The remand report contemplated that ITO had recommended to the JClT for initiation of proceedings under Sec. 272A(2) vide his letter dated 8.6.2014. JClT has in turn supposed to have issued notice on 23.10.2014, whi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arred. 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 con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

facts the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of Kakoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) had held that the penalty imposed u/s 272A(2)(c) of the Act is valid. The relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as follow:- ''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) do .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ction 133(6) of the I T Act 1961 is unambiguous and clear. The department under the said section has power to call for information in relation to such points or matters which would be useful for, or relevant to any proceeding under the Act from 'any person' including a 'Banking Company' or 'any Officer' thereon. Later, an amendment was introduced as per the Finance Act 1995 whereby, the words ''enquiry or" were inserted before the word ''proceeding .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

thority below the rank of Director or Commissioner without the prior approval of the 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 aut .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 Act in the case of any person. The Assessing Officer would, however, continue to have the power to requisition information in specific cases in respect of which any proceeding is pending as at present. However, an Income-tax author .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d 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 IT 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he instant case, by the impugned notice the assessing authority sought for information in respect of its customers which have cash transactions or deposits of ₹ 1,00,000 or above for a period of three years, without reference to any proceeding or enquiry pending before any authority under the Act. Admittedly, in the present case, notice was issued only after obtaining approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Co chin. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ordingly, 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) .................... .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

A(2)(c) was passed on 19.9.2014. Therefore, the penalty order is well within the time limit prescribed u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act The Judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, relied on by the Id 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 2710 was initiated by issuing notice on 25.3.2003 and the penalty order was passed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(Intelligence) is a valid order. (iii) there was reasonable cause, as mentioned in section 2738 of the Act for non furnishing information sought u/s 133(6); therefore, penalty u/s 272A(2) (c) of the I TAct is to be quashed: 8.6 The assessee has not offered any valid reason for not furnishing the information called for u/s 133(6) of the Act. Many of the notices issued by the ITO (Intelligence) were never responded to by the assessee. In many instances the Assessing Officer has mentioned that when .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version