TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 1084
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2012-2013. The assessees were also directed to give details of the persons, who had received interest income exceeding Rs. 10,000 during the above mentioned financial years. The assessees 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. 30,500 in respect of Mankulam Service Co-operative Bank Limited @ Rs. 100 per day for the period from 20.10.2014 to 20.08.2015; Rs. 24,900 in respect of Mavelikkara Govt. Servants Co-op. Society Ltd. @ Rs. 100 per day for the period from 21.02.2014 to 27.10.2014 and Rs. 81,300 in respect of Alappuzha Govt. Servants Co-operative Bank Ltd. @ Rs. 100 per day for the period from 30.09.2013 to 22.12.2015 (the date of imposing penalty). 2.2 Aggrieved by the orders of the imposition of penalty, the assessees preferred appeals to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees. 3. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the assessees have filed the present appeals. Since the grounds raised are almost similar, except variance in figure, we reproduce the ground raised in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 133(6) by the Income Tax Officer (I&CI), Kochi be deleted. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal." 3.1 The learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Income-tax Authorities. 3.2 The learned Departmental Representative 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. 4. We 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 jur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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 identica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 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 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 con....