9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (31) of the Income Tax Act and not W.P.(C) Nos. 22697 OF 2009 and connected cases. admittedly a Banking company, so as to invoke the power under Section 133; (b) When there is no prior approval of the Commissioner or Director, as the case may be, in view of the specific stipulation under the second proviso to Section 133(6) of the Act and (c) Whether the Income tax Officer is having power, competence and jurisdiction to issue such notice, assuming the rights and roles of the assessing authority. 2. M/S. V.G. Arun, R. Surendran and Mr. C.P. Peethambharan, learned counsel for the petitioners, led the arguments in the above cases. Referring to the decision already rendered by this Court in W.P.(C)No. 9926 of 2009 and connected ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eties Act and are independent entities as defined under W.P.(C) Nos. 22697 OF 2009 and connected cases. Section 2(a) of the said Act, which only mentions that it means a 'Co-operative Society' registered under the Act. Section 9 of the said Act places some more light on the status, where it is stated that the 'Co-operative Societies' will be bodies corporate . Learned Counsel submits that, by virtue of the exclusive status being a 'body corporate and since it is not a Banking Company, it will not constitute the term 'person' as it appears under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act; particularly since the term 'body corporate' or Co-operative Society or Co-operative Bank is not made a mention anywhere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... econd thought, to arrive at a conclusion that it is a 'body corporate' given shape to, by the members of such Society, whose functioning is controlled under the relevant provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act/Rules. This being W.P.(C) Nos. 22697 OF 2009 and connected cases. the position, the contentions raised by the petitioners that the notice under Section 133 (6) is not attracted in the case of a Co-operative Society, is rather wrong and misconceived. 7. With regard to the second point, that the notice has been issued by the concerned officer without 'prior approval' of the Commissioner or Director (as the case may be), it is very much true that Section 133(6) contemplates two different situations, ie; during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Standing Counsel appearing for the departmental authorities submits with reference to Ext.P1 notice (produced along with W.P.(C)No. 23563 of 2009), that the concerned Officer has obtained 'prior approval' from the Commissioner, as specifically observed in the penultimate paragraph of the said proceedings. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the notice issued and impugned in all the Writ Petitions have been issued by the very same officer W.P.(C) Nos. 22697 OF 2009 and connected cases. and as such, the contentions raised from the part of the petitioners to the contrary is without any pith or substance. The learned Standing Counsel further submits, with reference to the mandate under Section 197 of the Income Tax Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ector or Deputy Director or the Income tax Officer who is vested with the relevant jurisdiction, by virtue of the directions or orders issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120 or any other provision of the 'Act' and the Additional Commissioner or Additional Director or Joint Commissioner or Joint Director who is directed under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of that section, to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an Assessing Officer under this Act. 11. The scope of Section 133(6) has been analysed and explained by the Apex Court, as per the decision in Karnataka Bank Ltd. vs. Secretary, Govt. of India (AIR W.P.(C) Nos. 22697 OF 2009 and connected cases. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
