Tribunal upholds penalty under Income Tax Act, finds ITO had jurisdiction.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under section 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, dismissing the appeal. It found the ITO (Intelligence) had jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 133(6), the penalty order was timely under section 275(1)(c), and the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for non-compliance. The decision affirmed the CIT(A)'s ruling and aligned with previous cases at the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the ITO (Intelligence) to issue notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Timeliness of the order passed under section 272A(2)(c) in relation to section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Reasonable cause for non-furnishing of information sought under section 133(6) and the validity of the penalty imposed under section 272A(2)(c).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the 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 the notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Kathiroor Service Co-op Bank Ltd vs CIT, clarified that section 133(6) allows income tax authorities to call for information useful for any proceeding or enquiry under the Act, even if no proceeding is pending. The amendment introduced by the Finance Act 1995 expanded this power to include enquiries, provided prior approval from the Director or Commissioner was obtained. In this case, the ITO (Intelligence) issued the notice after obtaining the necessary approval, thus validating their jurisdiction.

2. Timeliness of the order passed under section 272A(2)(c) in relation to section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee argued that the penalty order was time-barred under section 275(1)(c). Section 275(1)(c) prescribes that penalty must be imposed within six months from the end of the month in which the action for imposition of penalty is 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 found that the penalty order complied with the time limits set by section 275(1)(c), rendering the assessee's argument meritless.

3. Reasonable cause for non-furnishing of information sought under section 133(6) and the validity of the penalty imposed under section 272A(2)(c):
The assessee failed to provide any valid reason for not furnishing the requested information. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to many notices and exhibited a lack of cooperation. Section 273B provides that no penalty shall be imposed if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the failure. However, in this case, the assessee did not demonstrate any reasonable cause for non-compliance. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under section 272A(2)(c).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to uphold the penalty under section 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on the jurisdictional validity of the notice issued under section 133(6), the timely imposition of the penalty, and the absence of a reasonable cause for non-compliance by the assessee. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety, consistent with the precedent set in similar cases adjudicated by the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal.

---