TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o a conclusion that the Income tax Officer (I CI) is an authority to call for information under Section 133(6) of Income tax Act without appreciating the fact that the power to call for information under section 133(6) is vested on the Assessing Officer, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the ADDITIONAL Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore the Income Tax Officer (I CI) is not an authority to invoke provision under the said section. 2. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the information under Section 133(6) shall be called for only for the purpose of the Income Tax Act 1961 and no such purpose was mentioned in the notice issued by the Income Tax Officer (I CI), Kochi. 3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the information called for under Section 133(6) should be useful for, or relevant to any enquiry as instructed in para 4.3 of Chapter 4 of Manual of Office Procedure which states that the Assessing Officer, the Addl. Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) may, U/s 133 call for certain information relevant for any proceedings under the Act. 4. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the officer, in the course of penalty proceedings, assessee did not furnish the required information. Therefore, the Addl. Director of Income Tax(I CI), Kochi imposed penalty of ₹ 17,300/- u/s. 274 r.w.s. 272A(2)(c) of the I.T. Act for non furnishing of information u/s. 133(6) for the financial years 2010-11 to 2012-13. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the penalty u/s. 274 r.w.s.272(2)(c) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. It was contended that the ITO(Intelligence) does not have the powers to issue the notice u/s. 133(6) of the I.T. Act. Further it was contended that the order imposing penalty is barred by limitation. The CIT(A) rejected both the contentions raised by the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Kathiroor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and others (2013) 360 ITR 243 and held that the ITO(Intelligence) has the authority under the Income Tax Act to issue notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act. The CIT(A) also rejected the assessee s other contention that the penalty order is barred by li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 7.1995. The effect of the said amendment is that, the power to call for information under the unamended Act, which was confined only in relation to a 'pending proceeding' came to be widened, and even in a case where no proceeding was pending, such information could be called for as part of the enquiry, subject to the rider that, such power was not to be exercised by any income tax authority 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, Cochin. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the assessing authority has not erred in issuing the notice to the assessee-financial institution requiring it to furnish information regarding the account holder with cash transactions or deposits 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 T Act. (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) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasonable cause furnished by the assessee as mentioned u/s 273B of the I T Act for non furnishing of information sought by the ITO(intelligence) u/s 133(6) of the Act, I am of the view that the order imposing penalty cannot be quashed. It is ordered accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal in ITA No.473/Coch/ 2015 is dismissed. 10 Both the parties have agreed that the facts considered by the Tribunal in ITA No 473/C/2015 are identical to the facts of the other appeals. Therefore, for the reasons stated in para 8 to 8.6, the appeals in ITA Nos 243/Coch/2013, 544/Coch/ 2015, 190/Coch/2016, 126/Coch/2017, 158/Coch/ 2017, 153/Coch/2017, 146/C/2017, 194/C/2017, 159/C/2017, 197/C/2017, 196/C/2017, 195/C/ 2017, 152/C/2017, 204/C/2017, 206/C/2017, 200/C/2017, 198/C/2017, 202/C/2017, 201/C/ 2017 and 217/C/2017 are dismissed. 11 To sum-up, all the 21 appeals filed by the different assessees are dismissed. 8.1 In view of the above orders of the Tribunal which are identical to the facts of the present cases, I hold that the CIT(A) is justified in upholding the orders passed u/s. 272A(2)(c) of the Act. It is ordered accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
