TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 591
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....words, there is no willful or contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee and the delay in filing this appeal was caused due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, hence, I condone the delay of 41 days and proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follow: 3.1 The assessee is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The assessee was served with notice u/s 133(6) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee was directed to furnish details of the persons who had deposited above Rs. 5 lakhs during the financial years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 & 2012-2013. The assessee was also directed to give details of the persons, who had received interest income exceeding Rs. 10,000 during the above mentioned financial years. The assessee did not furnish the details called for under the notice issued u/s 133(6). The Assessing Officer, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings u/s 272A(2)(c) r.w.s. 274 and imposed penalty of Rs. 29,300 being penalty payable at the rate of Rs. 100 per day from 08.02.2014 up to 27.11.2014 (the date of imposing penalty). 3.2 Aggrieved by the order of the imposition of penalty, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssue of non-service of notice for initiating penalty before any of the authorities below. On merits, the learned DR submitted that the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of The Kakoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. in ITA No.473/Coch/2015 & Others (21 appeals) order dated 23.08.2017 had adjudicated an identical issue in favour of the Revenue. 5. I have heard the rival submission and perused material the record. On identical facts the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of Kakoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) had held that the penalty imposed u/s 272A(2)(c) of the Act is valid. The relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as follow:- ''8. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. From the grounds raised and the argument note submitted by the assessee, I am of the view that three contentions are raised by the assessee in this appeal; namely; (i) ITO (Intelligence) does not have jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 133(6) of the I T Act; (ii) the order passed u/s 272A(2)(c) is barred by limitation; (iii) there was reasonable cause, as mentioned in section 2738 of the Act for non furnishing infor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve been amended. Now, the income- tax authorities have been empowered to requisition information which will be useful for or relevant to any enquiry or proceedings under the Income-tax Act in the case of any person. The Assessing Officer would, however, continue to have the power to requisition information in specific cases in respect of which any proceeding is pending as at present. However, an Income-tax authority below the rank of the Director or Commissioner can exercise this power in respect of an inquiry in a case where no proceeding is pending, only with the prior approval of the Director or the Commissioner." 8.2 In the instant case, notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued by the ITO (Intelligence) after obtaining necessary approval from the Director of Income Tax (Intelligence). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kathiroor Service Co-op Bank Ltd vs C/T (CIB) & others, reported in 360 ITR 243 have considered an identical case and decided that the ITO(CIB) has power to issue notice u/s 133(6) of the IT Act The relevant findings of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court, read as follows: "19. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the powers und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. " 8.5 Admittedly, penalty proceedings u/s 272A(2)(c) was initiated on 12.8.2014 by issuance of notice u/s 274 of the I T Act and the order imposing penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) was passed on 19.9.2014. Therefore, the penalty order is well within the time limit prescribed u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act The Judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, relied on by the Id AR of the assessee, in the case of CIT vs Sri Jithendra Singh Rathore, is not applicable to the facts of the instance case. In the case considered by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court the penalty proceedings u/s 2710 was initiated by issuing notice on 25.3.2003 and the penalty order was passed only on 30.9.2003 by which time, six months period mentioned u/s 275(l)(c) had already expired. The contention of the Id AR that 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 proceedi....