9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 548 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 274 r.w.s.272(2)(c) - not furnishing the information called for u/s 133(6) - Held that - 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 they had approached, the assessee Society, for seeking information u/s 133(6) of the Act, there was total lack of co-operation on the part of the assessee society as well 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.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) to issue notice under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Validity of the penalty order under Section 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Reasonable cause for non-furnishing of information under Section 133(6) and applicability of Section 273B. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) to Issue Notice under Section 133(6): The primary contention was whether the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) had the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted that Section 133(6) empowers income tax authorities to call for information useful for or relevant to any proceeding under the Act. The amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 1995, allowed such information to be called even if no proceeding was pending, provided the authority below the rank of Director or Commissioner obtained prior approval from the Director or Commissioner. In this case, the notice was issued by the ITO (Intelligence) after obtaining the necessary approval from the Director of Income Tax (Intelligence). The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Kathiroor Service Co-op Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, which upheld that the ITO (CIB) has the power to issue notice under Section 133(6). Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the ITO (Intelligence) had the jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 133(6). 2. Validity of the Penalty Order under Section 272A(2)(c): The second issue was whether the penalty order under Section 272A(2)(c) was barred by limitation. Section 275(1)(c) prescribes the time limit for imposing penalties, stating that the order must be passed within six months from the end of the month in which the action for imposition of penalty is initiated. In this case, the penalty proceedings were initiated on 12.08.2014, and the order imposing the penalty was passed on 19.09.2014. Thus, the Tribunal found that the penalty order was well within the time limit prescribed under Section 275(1)(c). The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's reliance on the Rajasthan High Court judgment in CIT vs. Shri Jithendra Singh Rathore, stating that the facts were not applicable to the present case. 3. Reasonable Cause for Non-Furnishing of Information and Applicability of Section 273B: The third issue was whether there was a reasonable cause for the non-furnishing of information under Section 133(6), which could invoke Section 273B to quash the penalty. The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not provide any valid reason for not furnishing the required information. Many notices issued by the ITO (Intelligence) were not responded to, and there was a lack of cooperation from the assessee society. Given the absence of a reasonable cause under Section 273B, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 272A(2)(c) for non-furnishing of information. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed all 21 appeals, affirming that: 1. The ITO (Intelligence) had the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 133(6) after obtaining the necessary approval. 2. The penalty orders were within the prescribed time limit under Section 275(1)(c). 3. There was no reasonable cause for non-furnishing of information, justifying the penalty under Section 272A(2)(c). Order pronounced in the open court on the 23rd day of August 2017.
|
