TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as threat (reference order imposing penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) in appeals. Since there is no reasonable cause furnished by the assessee as mentioned u/s 273B of the IT Act for non furnishing of information sought by the ITO(intelligence) u/s 133(6) of the Act, the order imposing penalty cannot be quashed. - Decided in favour of revenue. - ITA No.418/Coch/2019, SA No.37/Coch/2019, ITA No.392/Coch/2019, SA No.35/Coch/2019, ITA No.405/Coch/2019, SA No.36/Coch/2019, ITA No.262/Coch/2019 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2019 - ITA No.261/Coch/2019, ITA No.260/Coch/2019, ITA No.259/Coch/2019, ITA No.235/Coch/2019, ITA No.226/Coch/2019 Shri Chandra Poojari, AM And Shri George George K, JM For the Assessees : Smt.Swathy S. Advocate For the Revenue : Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR ORDER PER GEORGE GEORGE K, JM : These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against separate order of the CIT(A). The orders of the CIT(A) arise out of the order passed u/s 272A(2)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessees in the case of M/s.Mekkadampu Service Co-operative Bank Li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank Limited ITA No.405/Coch/2019 21.02.2014 to 27.10.2014 24,900 4. Pallikkal Naduvilemuri Service Co-operative Bank Limited ITA No.262/Coch/2019 21.02.2014 to 27.10.2014 24,900 5. Pallippuram Village Service Co-operative Bank Limited ITA No.261/Coch/2019 07.02.2014 to 23.09.2015 59,400 6. Thycattussery Service Co-operative Bank Limited ITA No.260/Coch/2019 30.09.2013 to 22.12.2015 81,300 7. Pudukkad Service Cooperative Bank Limited ITA No.259/Coch/2019 25.09.2013 to 10.04.2015 56,300 8. Manakkad Service Cooperative Bank Limited ITA No.235/Coch/2019 20.10.2014 to 25.08.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any enquiry only shall be called for under Section 133(6) and that there was no mention in the notice issued by Income Tax Officer (I CI) about any such enquiry under the Income Tax Act 1961. 5. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the imposition of penalty is time barred under section 275(1) (c) of The Income Tax Act 1961in as much as the proceedings for imposition of penalty was initiated on the date of notice issued by the Income Tax Officer (I CI), Kochi for the initiation of such proceedings. 6. The Appellant prays that the penalty of ₹ 49,900/- imposed by the Joint Director of Income Tax (I CI), Kochi in respect of non-furnishing of information called for under Section 133(6) by the Income Tax Officer (I CI), Kochi be deleted. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal. 5.1 The learned Counsel for the assessees reiterated the submissions made before the Income-tax Authorities. 5.2 The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of The K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity 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 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 be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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) 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 pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 7. In view of the above order of the Tribunal which is identical to the facts of the present cases, we hold that the CIT(A) is justified in upholding the orders passed u/s 272A(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act. It is ordered accordingly. SA Nos. 35, 36 37/Coch/2019 8. Since the appeals are disposed off, the Stay Applications filed by the assessees are dismissed as infructuous. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
