9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 892 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 272A(2)(c) r.w.s. 274 - non furnishing of information sought by the ITO(intelligence) u/s 133(6) - HELD THAT - Assessee has not offered any valid reason for not furnishing the information called for u/s 133(6). Many of the notices issued by the ITO (Intelligence) were never responded to by the assessee. In many instances the AO 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 2018 (1) TMI 548 - ITAT COCHIN . Since there is no reasonable cause furnished by the assessee as mentioned u/s 273B for non furnishing of information sought by the ITO(intelligence) u/s 133(6) that the order imposing penalty cannot be quashed.- Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of ITO (Intelligence) to issue notice under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Limitation period for passing the penalty order under Section 272A(2)(c). 3. Reasonable cause for non-furnishing of information under Section 133(6). Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of ITO (Intelligence) to issue notice under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act: The assessee contended that the ITO (Intelligence) did not have the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal referred to the provisions of Section 133(6) and the amendment introduced by the Finance Act 1995, which allowed the department to call for information even when no proceeding was pending, provided the prior approval of the Director or Commissioner was obtained. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Kathiroor Service Co-op Bank Ltd vs CIT, which upheld the power of the ITO (Intelligence) to issue such notices. The Tribunal concluded that the ITO (Intelligence) had jurisdiction to issue the notice in this case, as the necessary approval from the Director of Income Tax (Intelligence) was obtained. 2. Limitation period for passing the penalty order under Section 272A(2)(c): The assessee argued that the penalty order was barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal examined Section 275(1)(c), which prescribes the time limit for imposing penalties. The Tribunal found that the penalty proceedings were initiated on 12.08.2014, and the order imposing the penalty was passed on 19.09.2014, well within the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's contention that the limitation period should be reckoned from the date of the notice issued under Section 133(6), stating that the time limit is calculated from the date of initiation of penalty proceedings, i.e., the issuance of notice under Section 274. 3. Reasonable cause for non-furnishing of information under Section 133(6): The assessee claimed that there was a reasonable cause for not furnishing the information sought under Section 133(6). However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide any valid reason for the non-compliance. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had failed to respond to many notices and exhibited a lack of cooperation. The Tribunal concluded that there was no reasonable cause as per Section 273B of the Income Tax Act for the non-furnishing of information and upheld the penalty imposed under Section 272A(2)(c). Conclusion: The Tribunal, following its previous decision in the case of The Kakoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., held that the CIT(A) was justified in upholding the penalty order under Section 272A(2)(c). The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, affirming the validity of the penalty imposed for non-compliance with the notice issued under Section 133(6).
|
