2019 (7) TMI 658
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessees in the case of M/s.Mekkadampu Service Co-operative Bank Limited (SA No.37/Coch/2019 arising out of ITA No.418/Coch/2019), M/s.Uzhuva Service Co-operative Bank Limited (SA No.35/Coch/2019 arising out of ITA No.392/Coch/2019) and M/s. Neendoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited (SA No.36/Coch/2019 arising out of ITA No.405/Coch/2019) have also filed stay applications seeking to stay the recovery of outstanding tax arrears. 3. There is a delay of 14 days and 8 days in filing appeals in ITA Nos.418/Coch/2019 and 405/Coch/2019, respectively. The assessees have filed petition for condonation of delay. We have perused the reasons stated for filing these appeals belatedly. We find that there is sufficient cause for the delayed filing of the appeals and no latches can be attributed to the assessees. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follow: 4.1 The assessees are Co-operative Societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The assessees were served with notice u/s 133(6) of the Incometax Act. The assessees were directed to furnish details of the pers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessing Officer, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Additional Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore the Income Tax Officer (I&CI) is not an authority to invoke provision under the said section. 2. The Commissioner 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 (J&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 "enquir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct 1961 is unambiguous and clear. The department under the said section has power to call for information in relation to such points or matters which would be useful for, or relevant to any proceeding under the Act from 'any person' including a 'Banking Company' or 'any Officer' thereon. Later, an amendment was introduced as per the Finance Act 1995 whereby, the words ''enquiry or" were inserted before the word ''proceeding'' in Section 133(6), also adding the '2nd proviso' to the said provision, with effect from 1.7.1995. The effect of the said amendment is that, the power to call for information under the un-amended Act which was confined only in relation to a 'pending proceeding' came to be widened, and even in a case where no proceeding was pending, such information could be called for as part of the enquiry, subject to the rider that, such power was not to be exercised by any income tax authority below the rank of Director or Commissioner without 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 clar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on or assessee, but pertains to information in relation to "such points or matters" which the assessing authority issuing notices requires. This clearly illustrates that the information of general nature can be called for and names and addresses of depositors who hold deposits above a particular sum is certainly permissible. 20. In the instant case, by the impugned notice the assessing authority sought for information in respect of its customers which have cash transactions or deposits of Rs. 1,00,000 or above for a period of three years, without reference to any proceeding or enquiry pending before any authority under the Act. Admittedly, in the present case, notice was issued only after obtaining approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Co chin. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the assessing authority has not erred in issuing the notice to the assessee-financial institution requiring it to furnish information regarding the account holder 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) t....
TaxTMI
TaxTMI