2018 (1) TMI 591 - AT - Income Tax

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) 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). Since there is no reasonable cause furnished by the assessee as mentioned u/s 273 of the IT Act for non furnishing of information sought by the ITO(intelligence) u/s 133(6) of the Act it is of the view that the order imposing penalty cannot be quashed. - Decided against assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Jurisdiction of ITO (Intelligence) to issue notice under Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act.
3. Timeliness of the order passed under Section 272A(2)(c).
4. Presence of reasonable cause for non-furnishing of information sought under Section 133(6).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appeal was delayed by 41 days. The assessee filed a petition to condone the delay, supported by an affidavit from the Managing Director explaining the reasons. The Tribunal found the delay was not due to any willful or contumacious conduct by the assessee and was beyond their control. Consequently, the delay was condoned, allowing the appeal to be heard on its merits.

2. Jurisdiction of ITO (Intelligence) to Issue Notice under Section 133(6):
The assessee contested that the ITO (Intelligence) did not have the jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 133(6). The Tribunal referred to the amendment introduced by the Finance Act 1995 and the Circular No. 717 dated 14.8.1995, which clarified that income tax authorities could call for information even when no proceeding was pending, provided prior approval from the Director or Commissioner was obtained. The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Kathiroor Service Co-op Bank Ltd vs CIT (360 ITR 243), which confirmed that the ITO (Intelligence) has the power to issue such notices. The Tribunal thus held that the ITO (Intelligence) was within its jurisdiction to issue the notice.

3. Timeliness of the Order Passed under Section 272A(2)(c):
The assessee argued that the penalty order was time-barred under Section 275(1)(c), which prescribes a six-month limit from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal noted that the penalty proceedings were initiated on 12.8.2014, and the penalty order was passed on 19.9.2014, well within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty order was not time-barred.

4. Presence of Reasonable Cause for Non-Furnishing Information:
The assessee claimed there was a reasonable cause for not furnishing the information requested under Section 133(6). However, the Tribunal found that the assessee did not provide any valid reasons for non-compliance. The Tribunal observed that many notices issued by the ITO (Intelligence) were not responded to, and there was a lack of cooperation from the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal held that there was no reasonable cause for the non-furnishing of information, and the penalty imposed under Section 272A(2)(c) was justified.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order that confirmed the penalty imposed under Section 272A(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with its earlier ruling in the case of Kakoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., where similar issues were adjudicated in favor of the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on January 5, 2018.

← Previous Next →