| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3815 (Ker-HC) : (2020) 426 ITR 0180 : (2020) 317 CTR 0191 : (2021) 276 TAXMAN 0368 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 133(6)
Where letter was issued by Director of Income Tax (Intelligence) to revenue officer authorizing them to issue notices to co-operative banks/urban co-operative banks/credit co-operative societies coming under the respective jurisdiction calling for information as contemplated under section 133(6), then by virtue of said documents, Revenue Officer was the authorised person who could issue notices.
|
Income Tax Authorities - Power to call for information under section 133(6) - Jurisdiction of concerned revenue officer -
Assessees-Co-operative Banks challenged action of DIT (Intelligence), whereunder Revenue Officer asked for furnishing information under section 133(6). Issue arose as to whether notice under section 133(6) issued by revenue officer was valid prior to Notification No. 77 of 2014 of CBDT on delegation of power dated December 10, 2014. Assessee contended that whether 'enquiry' under section 133(6) in absence of an 'enquiry' under any of the provisions, conducted by revenue officer (Intelligence) was valid. Held: Letter was issued by Director of Income Tax (Intelligence) to revenue officer authorizing them to issue notices to co-operative banks/urban co-operative banks/credit co-operative societies coming under the respective jurisdiction calling for information as contemplated under section 133(6). By virtue of said documents, revenue officer was the authorised person who could issue notices, therefore, allegation that officer had no authority was to be rejected. In Kathiroor Service Co-operative Bank's case, it was held that following amendment to section 133(6) in 1995, income-tax authority is competent to issue notice to credit co-operative societies seeking information relating to account holders or depositors who had cash deposit of rupees 5 lakhs and above in an year for last three years. From reliance placed on the Notification dated November 1, 2011, it was decipherable that power of collection, collation and dissemination which earlier vested with Central Information Branch was transferred to ITO (Intelligence), which would not mean that the notices issued and imposition of penalty by the ITO (Intelligence) lacked jurisdiction.
REFERRED : Kathiroor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (CIB) (2014) 360 ITR 243 (SC) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 0176 (SC)
FAVOUR : Against the assessee
A.Y. :
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
OR Try Reload the Page |