9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1084 - AT - Income TaxPenalty imposed u/s 272A(2)(c) - non furnishing the information called for u/s 133(6) - period of limitation - HELD THAT - As decided in M/S. KAKOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 2018 (1) TMI 548 - ITAT COCHIN notice issued u/s 133(6) should be reckoned for considering the time limit u/s 275(1)( c) of the Act is de-void of any merits; because Section 275(1)( c) prescribes the time limit only from the date of initiation of penalty proceedings; namely issuance of notice u/s 274 Reasonable cause, as mentioned in section 273B of the Act for non furnishing information sought u/s 133(6) - 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 ) - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) to issue notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether the order passed under section 272A(2)(c) is barred by limitation. 3. Whether there was a reasonable cause for non-furnishing information sought under section 133(6), thereby quashing the penalty under section 272A(2)(c). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) to issue notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act: The Tribunal examined whether the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) had the jurisdiction to issue a notice under section 133(6). Section 133(6) empowers the department to call for information useful for any proceeding or enquiry under the Act. An amendment via the Finance Act 1995 extended this power to situations where no proceeding is pending, provided prior approval from the Director or Commissioner is obtained. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kathiroor Service Co-op Bank Ltd vs CIT, which confirmed that the ITO (Intelligence) has the authority to issue such notices after obtaining necessary approval. In the present case, the ITO (Intelligence) had obtained approval from the Director of Income Tax (Intelligence), validating the jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 133(6). 2. Whether the order passed under section 272A(2)(c) is barred by limitation: The Tribunal assessed whether the penalty order was time-barred under section 275(1)(c) of the Act, which prescribes the time limit for imposing penalties. Section 275(1)(c) states that the penalty must be imposed within six months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated. In this case, the penalty proceedings were initiated on 12.08.2014, and the order was passed on 19.09.2014, well within the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal dismissed the contention that the notice issued under section 133(6) should be considered for the time limit, affirming that the relevant date is the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 274. 3. Whether there was a reasonable cause for non-furnishing information sought under section 133(6), thereby quashing the penalty under section 272A(2)(c): The Tribunal evaluated whether the assessees had a reasonable cause for not furnishing the requested information, which could quash the penalty under section 272A(2)(c). The assessees did not provide any valid reasons for non-compliance. The Tribunal noted that many notices were ignored, and there was a lack of cooperation from the assessees. Given the absence of a reasonable cause as per section 273B, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under section 272A(2)(c). Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) was justified in upholding the penalties imposed under section 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The appeals filed by the assessees were dismissed, affirming the validity of the penalties due to non-compliance with notices issued under section 133(6). The order was pronounced on June 18, 2019.
|
