9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - ITA No.312/Coch/2019, ITA No.317/Coch/2019, ITA No.316/Coch/2019 - - - Dated:- 18-6-2019 - Shri Chandra Poojari, AM And Shri George George K, JM For the Appellant : Sri.C.A.Jojo, Sri.Amaljit P. For the Respondent : Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR ORDER PER BENCH : These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against separate order of the CIT(A). The orders of the CIT(A) arise out of the order passed u/s 272A(2)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follow: 2.1 The assessees are Co-operative Societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The assessees were served with notice u/s 133(6) of the Incometax Act. The assessees were directed to furnish details of the persons who had deposited above ₹ 5 lakhs during the financial years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 2012-2013. The assessees were also directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chapter 4 of Manual of Office Procedure which states that the Assessing Officer, the Addl. Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) may, u/s 133 call for certain information relevant for any proceedings under the Act. 4. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the inquiry and enquiry have different and distinct meaning in the Income Tax Act 1961 and refers to different contexts and that the information for the purpose of the Act which are useful for, or relevant to any enquiry only shall be called for under Section 133(6) and that there was no mention in the notice issued by Income Tax Officer (I CI) about any such enquiry under the Income Tax Act 1961. 5. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the imposition of penalty is time barred under section 275(1) (c) of The Income Tax Act 1961in as much as the proceedings for imposition of penalty was initiated on the date of notice issued by the Income Tax Officer (I CI), Kochi for the initiation of such proceedings. 6. The Appellant prays that the penalty of ₹ 30,500/- imposed by the Joint Director of Income Tax (I CI), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9; in Section 133(6), also adding the '2nd proviso' to the said provision, with effect from 1.7.1995. The effect of the said amendment is that, the power to call for information under the unamended Act which was confined only in relation to a 'pending proceeding' came to be widened, and even in a case where no proceeding was pending, such information could be called for as part of the enquiry, subject to the rider that, such power was not to be exercised by any income tax authority below the rank of Director or Commissioner without the prior approval of the Director or the Commissioner, as the case may be. The said amendment was brought about as a measure to tackle tax evasion effectively, as clarified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular no. 717 dated 14.8.1995, which reads as follows: Power to call for information when no proceeding is pending. - ... 41.2 At present the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 133 empower Income-tax authorities to call for information which is useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the Act which means that these provisions can be invoked only in cases where the proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice the assessing authority sought for information in respect of its customers which have cash transactions or deposits of ₹ 1,00,000 or above for a period of three years, without reference to any proceeding or enquiry pending before any authority under the Act. Admittedly, in the present case, notice was issued only after obtaining approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Co chin. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the assessing authority has not erred in issuing the notice to the assessee-financial institution requiring it to furnish information regarding the account holder with cash transactions or deposits of more than ₹ 1,00,000. 21. Therefore, we hold that the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in its conclusion that for such enquiry under section 133(6) the notice could be validly issued by the assessing authority. 22. In view of the above, the appeal requires to be dismissed and accordingly, stands dismissed. 8.3 In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra) and the aforesaid reasoning, I am of the view that the ITO (Intell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing 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 ITA No.202/C/2017 and ITA N0.217/C/ 2017). Since there is no reasonable cause furnished by the assessee as mentioned u/s 2738 of the I T Act for non furnishing of information sought by the ITO(intelligence) u/s 133(6) of the Act I am of the view that the order imposing penalty cannot be quashed. It is ordered accordingly. 9 In the result, the appeal in ITA No.473/Coch/ 2015 is dismissed. 10. Both the parties have agreed that the facts considered by the Tribunal in ITA No 473/C/2015 are identical to the facts of the other appeals. Therefore, for the reasons stated in para 8 to 8.6, the appeals in ITA Nos. 243/Coch/2013, 544/Coch/ 2015, 190/Coch/2016, 126/Coch/2017, 158/Coch/ 2017, 153/Coch/2017, 146/C/2017, 194/C/2017, 159/C/2017, 197/C/2017, 196/C/2017, 195/C/ 2017, 152/C/2017, 204/C/2017, 206/C/2017, 200/C/2017, 198/C/2017, 202/C/2017, 201/C/ 2017 and 217/C/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
