2018 (6) TMI 540

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the information under Section 133(6) shall be called for only for the purpose of the Income Tax Act 1961 and no such purpose was mentioned in the notice issued by the Income Tax Officer (I&CI), Kochi. 3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the information called for under Section 133(6) should be useful for, or relevant to any enquiry as instructed in para 4.3 of 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 (&&CI) about any such "enquiry" under the Income Tax Act 1961. 5. The Commissioner of Incom....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....thority. It was contended that the ITO(Intelligence) does not have the powers to issue the notice u/s. 133(6) of the I.T. Act. Further it was contended that the order imposing penalty is barred by limitation. The CIT(A) rejected both the contentions raised by the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kathiroor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and others (2013) 360 ITR 243 and held that the ITO(Intelligence) has the authority under the Income Tax Act to issue notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act. The CIT(A) also rejected the assessee's other contention that the penalty order is barred by limitation. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessees has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. DR submitted that the issue in question is squarely covered by the orders of the Tribunal in the cases of Kakoor Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 473/Coch/2015 & Others (21 appeals) dated 23/08/2017. 8. I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material on record. I notice an identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....out 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 proceedings are pending and not otherwise. This acts as a limitation or a restraint on the capability of the Department to tackle evasion effectively. It is, therefore, thought necessary to have the power to gather information which after proper enquiry, will result in initiation of proceedings under the Act. 41.3 With a view to having a clear legal sanction, the existing provisions to call for information have been amended. Now, the income- tax authorities have been empowered to requisition information which will be useful for or relevant to any enquir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r with cash transactions or deposits of more than Rs. 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 (Intelligence) has 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; 8.4 Section 275(1)(c) of the Act prescribed the time limit for imposition of penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) of the I T Act. Section 275(1)(c ) of the I T Act, reads as follows: "275(1)........................................................... (c) in any other case after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initia....