2019 (7) TMI 597

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as 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. 81,300 @ Rs. 100 per day for the period from 30.09.2013 to 22.12.2015 (till the date of order imposing penalty). 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of the imposition of penalty, the assessee preferred appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal. The grounds raised read as follows:- "A. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in arriving into a conclusion that the Income tax Officer (I&CI) is an authority to call for information under section 133(6) of Income tax Act without appreciating the fact that the power to call for information under section 133(6) is vested on the Assessing Officer, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Additional C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id notice. Learned Joint Director of Income Tax (Intelligence), Kochi issued order under Section 272A (2) (C) imposing penalty of Rs. 81,300/- for the period 30- 09-2013 to 22-12-2015. Demand notice under section 156 for the amount has also been issued along with the order. H. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered and answered the questions of law raised in the grounds of appeal, by a speaking order. I. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal." 2.4 The learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Income-tax Authorities. 2.5 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. 3. 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g 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 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 th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the I TAct (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 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 ....