×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India
These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
08-07-2019, Mekkadampu Service Co-operative Bank, Section 133(6),Tribunal Cochin
These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against separate order of the CIT(A). The orders of the CIT(A) arise out of the order 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 assessees were directed to furnish details of the persons who had deposited above Rs.5 lakhs during the financial years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 & 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 @ Rs.100 per day in respect of the impugned assessees, as follows:-
4.2 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.
5. 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 grounds raised in case of Mekkadampu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. in ITA No.418/Coch/2019 as follows:-
“1. 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 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 "enquiry" only shall be called for under Section 133(6) and that there was no mention in the notice issued by Income Tax Officer (I&CI) about any such "enquiry" under the Income Tax Act 1961.
5. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the imposition of penalty is time barred under section 275(1) (c) of The Income Tax Act 1961in as much as the proceedings for imposition of penalty was initiated on the date of notice issued by the Income Tax Officer (I&CI), Kochi for the initiation of such proceedings.
6. The Appellant prays that the penalty of Rs. 49,900/- imposed by the Joint Director of Income Tax (I&CI), Kochi in respect of non-furnishing of information called for under Section 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.”
5.1 The learned Counsel for the assessees reiterated the submissions made before the Income-tax Authorities.
5.2 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.
6. 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