THE PARIYARAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRICHUR vs. THE ACIT, THRISSUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessee. Therefore, to ensure natural justice, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a co-operative bank, failed to furnish information requested by the Income Tax Officer under Section 133(6). Consequently, penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 272A(2)(c). The assessee contended that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance and that the penalty order was time-barred.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty under Section 272A(2)(c) was rightly imposed for non-compliance with a notice under Section 133(6), and if there was a reasonable cause for such non-compliance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Kathiroor Service Co-op Bank Ltd. v. C/T (CIB)49 citing360 ITR 243 · 2014 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Per CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-I,
Kochi dated 26.02.2019 arising out of the order passed u/s. 272A(2)(c) r.w.s. 274 of
the Act and pertain to the assessment year 2011-12.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Before us, the assessee filed an
adjournment application dated 22/07/2019. Since it is a covered matter, we proceed
to decide the appeal ex parte after hearing the Ld. DR.
2 I.T.A. 276/C/2019
All the grounds of appeal relate to the levy of penalty u/s. 272A(2)(c) of the I.T.
Act for non-compliance of notice u/s. 133(6) by the Income Tax Officer
(Intelligence), Thrissur.
The facts of the case are that the assessee is a Primary Agricultural Co-
operative Society. The Income Tax Officer(Intelligence), Thrissur issued notice
u/s. 133(6) of the I.T. Act vide letter dated 06/09/2013 to the Secretary of the
assessee-Society wherein following information was sought for:-
Sl. Information Required No. 1 Details of depositors of cash exceeding Rs. 5 Lakhs during the F.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. (Information regarding cash deposits in SB account where the aggregate of cash deposits is Rs. 5 Lakhs or above for the concerned years. While furnishing the information, all the cash transaction in the account are to be reflected date wise and not merely the aggregate amount. 2. Details of the payment of interest exceeding Rs.10,000/- made to the depositors including interest on Fixed deposits.
4.1 The above information was not furnished to the Department. Therefore, the
Joint Director of Income Tax (I&CI), Kochi initiated penalty proceedings u/s.
272A(2)(c) of the Act. The assessee did not appear in the penalty proceedings
and did not furnish the required information. It was stated that the assessee had
sought time for producing the details called for in the notice issued u/s. 133(6)
of the I.T. Act. Further, it was stated that the penalty order is barred by
limitation. Hence, it was submitted that there was reasonable cause as mandated
u/s. 273B of the Act for not imposing penalty u/s. 272A(2)(c) of the Act.
However, the Joint Director of Income Tax(Intelligence), Kochi rejected the
3 I.T.A. 276/C/2019
contentions of the assessee and imposed penalty of Rs.56,300/- u/s. 274 r.w.s.
272A(2)(c) of the I.T. Act for non furnishing of information u/s. 133(6) for the
assessment year 2011-12.
Against the order of the penalty u/s. 274 r.w.s.272(2)(c) of the Act, the
assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed
the appeal of the assessee by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Kathiroor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax and others (2013) (360 ITR 243) wherein it was
held that the ITO(Intelligence) has the authority under the Income Tax Act to
issue notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act.
We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material on record. We find
that in the above case, the Assessing Officer has passed penalty orders without
hearing the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, as a last
chance, we are of the view that the assessee should be given one more
opportunity of hearing in the above case. For the limited purpose of hearing the
assessee and to comply with the principle of natural justice, we restore the
appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer. The assessee shall co-operate with
the Department and shall submit before the Assessing Officer that there is
reasonable cause as mandated u/s. 273B for non-levy of penalty u/s. 272A(2)(c)
4 I.T.A. 276/C/2019
of the I.T. Act. Thus, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for
statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is partly allowed for
statistical purposes..
Order pronounced in the open court on the 24th July, 2019.
sd/- sd/- (GEORGE GEORGE K.) (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Place: Kochi Dated: 24th July, 2019 GJ Copy to: 1. M/s. M/s. Pariyaram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pariyaram, Chalakudy Post, Thrissur-680 721. The Income-tax Officer (I&CI), Thrissur. 3. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-I, Kochi 4. The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Thrissur. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Cochin Bench, Cochin. 6. Guard File. By Order
(ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T., Cochin
More judgments on Section 133(6)
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Rangoli Hotel, Mehsana vs DCIT, Circle, Gandhinagar, GandhiangarITA 2286/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Ritu Rajesh Gohil, Jamnagar, Gujarat vs ITO Ward 2(1), Jamnagar, GujaratITA 109/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026