TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 658
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er passed u/s 272A(2)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income-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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shall take up for adjudication each of the above three contentions as under: i) ITO (Intelligence) does not have jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 133(6) of the I T Act: Section 133(6) of the I T Act 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 authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are likely to have taxable income and whether they are in compliance with the provisions of the Act. It would not fall under the restricted domains of being "area specific" or "case specific". Section 133(6) does not refer to any enquiry about any particular person 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tor of Income Tax (Intelligence) is a valid order. (iii) there was reasonable cause, as mentioned in section 2738 of the Act for non furnishing information sought u/s 133(6); therefore, penalty u/s 272A(2) (c) of the I TAct is to be quashed: 8.6 The assessee has not offered any valid reason for not furnishing the information called for u/s 133(6) of the Act. Many of the notices issued by the ITO (Intelligence) were never responded to by the assessee. In many instances the Assessing Officer has mentioned that when they had approached, the assessee Society, for seeking information u/s 133(6) of the Act there was total lack of co-operation on the part of the assessee society as well as threat (reference order imposing penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) in appeals ITA No.202/C/2017 and ITA N0.217/C/ 2017). Since there is no reasonable cause furnished by the assessee as mentioned u/s 2738 of the I T Act for non furnishing of information sought by the ITO(intelligence) u/s 133(6) of the Act I am of the view that the order imposing penalty cannot be quashed. It is ordered accordingly. 9 In the result, the appeal in ITA No.473/Coch/ 2015 is dismissed. 10. B....