EDATHALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (I AND C)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the expression 'Income-tax Authorities' is of wide amplitude and includes the Assessing Officer, as defined under Section 133 of the Act. The role of these authorities extends to verification, collection, dissemination, and enquiry. The Court found no substance in the submission that only an 'Income-tax Assessing Officer' could issue such notices, citing notifications dated 10.12.2014 and 19.8.2011. It was noted that the appellants did not provide any information upon receipt of the impugned notices, leading to the imposition of penalties. The Court also observed that there was nothing in the notification dated 19.8.2011 that restricted the power of the Director of Income-tax to authorize Income-tax authorities to initiate actions. The procedure under Section 133(6) was described as akin to a survey to ascertain whether co-operative banks failed to divulge information regarding receipts exceeding Rs. 5 lakhs. The Court relied on the decisions in Kathiroor Service Bank (supra) and Kodur Service Co-operative Bank (supra), which held that there was no scope for interfering with the validity of notices issued under Section 133(6) to similarly situated co-operative banks. The Court concluded that the appeals did not involve any substantial questions of law and were accordingly dismissed, upholding the orders under challenge.
What were the facts?
The appeals were filed by various Service Co-operative Banks against orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench. The core issue revolved around notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by Income Tax Officers (Intelligence) to these banks, seeking details of deposits exceeding Rs. 5 lakhs for the preceding three assessment years. The banks challenged the jurisdiction of the issuing authorities and the validity of the notices. The ITAT had upheld the notices and the subsequent imposition of penalties for non-compliance. The High Court was considering these appeals, along with other connected cases.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) had the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for verification of information, considering the scope of 'Income-tax Authorities' and relevant notifications. - Assessee's contention: The notices were not issued by the 'Assessing Officer' as exclusively contemplated by Section 133(6), and therefore, lacked jurisdiction. - Revenue's contention: The expression 'Income-tax Authorities' is broad and includes the Assessing Officer. Notifications dated 10.12.2014 and 19.8.2011, along with office orders, authorize the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) to issue such notices for collection, collation, verification, and dissemination of information. Reliance was placed on the decision in Kathiroor Service Bank (supra) and Kodur Service Co-operative Bank (supra). 2. Whether the procedure prescribed under Section 133(6) was followed and if the notices were valid in light of the provisions of the Act and relevant notifications. - Assessee's contention: Implicitly challenged the validity of the notices by questioning the jurisdiction of the issuing authority. - Revenue's contention: The procedure under Section 133(6) is akin to a survey for ascertaining compliance and divulgence of information. The appellants did not provide information, leading to penalties. The judgment in Kathiroor Service Co-operative Bank (supra) held that there was no scope for interfering with the validity of notices issued under Section 133(6).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 133,Section 133(6),Section 120(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Amit Rawal, J.
This order shall decide 34 appeals preferred by various Co- operative Banks impugning the action of the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence), asking for furnishing information under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter 'the Act', for short, for the financial years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. All the banks, after availing statutory remedy and remained unsuccessful before the Commissioner of Appeals as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, have preferred these appeals, 34 in number. The Tribunal decided the matters on different dates; the orders impugned in ITA.Nos.289/19, 290/19, 297/19, 298/19, 302/19, 303/19, 304/19, 308/19 & 312/19 on 23.8.2017; in ITA.Nos.291/19, 292/19, 293/19 & 305/19 on 3.10.2017; ITA.Nos.287/19 & 294/19 on 8.11.2017; ITA No.307/19 on 9.11.2017; ITA No.73/18 on 7.6.2018; ITA No.311/19 on 20.6.2019; ITA Nos.270/19, 271/19, 273/19, 275/19, 276/19, 279/19, 280/19, 295/19, 200/19 & 309/19 on 8.7.2019; ITA No.274/19 on 20.7.2019; ITA No.272/19 on 1.8.2019; ITA Nos.299/19 and 265/19 on 7.8.2019; ITA No.306/19 on 4.9.2019 and ITA No.296/19 on 1.10.2019. 2.The facts have been taken from ITA.No.73/2018, which, according to the learned counsel, is the lead case for adjudication of the questions of law raised in all the appeals. The questions of law raised for consideration are as following: (1) Whether the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) is an authority to issue notice U/S 133(6) of the Income Tax Act to the appellant prior to Notification No.77 of 2014 of the CBDT dated 10.12.2014? (2)Whether the notice U/S 133(6) issued by Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) is valid prior to Notification No.77 of 2014 of the CBDT on the delegation of power dated 10.12.2014? (3)Whether the “Inquiry” u/s 133(6) in the absence of an “enquiry” under any of the provisions of the Act, conducted by the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) is right in the eye of law? (4)Whether the notice U/S 133(6) issued by Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) is valid in the absence of a formation of opinion as to whether it will be useful for or relevant to any enquiry or proceeding under the Act? (5)Whether a notice u/s 133(6) can be issued on the appellant which is not a “person” as per Income Tax Act? (6)Whether the order passed by the Joint Director of Income Tax (Intelligence) U/S 272A(2)(c) is right in the eye of law?
The learned counsel Sri.C.A.Jojo appearing on behalf of various Co-operative Banks, in support of the aforementioned questions of law, raised the following submissions:- i. Section 133(6) of the Act empowers the Assessing Officer, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Joint Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) to require firms, Hindu undivided families, trustees, any dealer, broker or agents and any person including a banking company (relevant in the instant case) to furnish information relating to such points or matters, statements of accounts and affairs verified in the manner specified by the set of officers referred to above, for giving information in relation to such points or matters, as in the opinion of the officers, would be useful for or relevant for the purpose of enquiry or proceeding under the Act. As per second proviso to the aforesaid provision of law, where no proceedings are pending, power in respect of an inquiry shall not be exercised by any “Income-tax authority” below the rank of Principal Director or Director or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner other than the Joint Director or Deputy Director or Assistant Director without the prior approval, of Principal Director or Director or as the case may be, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. ii. The Income-tax Officer (Intelligence), Kochi did not have the jurisdiction to seek information vide notice dated 10.9.2013 (Annexure A) as he derives the power only by notification No.77/2014 dated 10.12.2014 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Annexure G). There is no delegation of power to the notification placed on record empowering the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) to initiate proceedings under sub-section (6) of Section 133 nor is there any material on record justifying the opinion which would be useful and relevant for the purpose of the proceedings. iii. The expressions 'enquiry' and 'inquiry' have different connotation and cannot be read in the same manner. The power to hold enquiry under section 133(6) of the Act vests only with the Assessing Officer (emphasis supplied), the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Joint Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) as the case may be. The proviso does not authorize the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) to make such an inquiry. iv.Section 120 of the Act do not envisage any power of delegation in the absence of any direction of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The 'enquiry' under Section 133(6) has no nexus with any 'inquiry' under the Act.
'Enquiry' is a request for information. whereas 'inquiry' is the investigation because as per the statement of facts of the respondents, the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) is not an Assessing Officer. v. As per the 'Manual of Office Procedure', the responsibility for collection, collation and dissemination of information was with the Central Information Branch. But vide notification dated 6.9.2013 (Annexure G attached to the statement of the respondents in ITA.265/19), the aforementioned powers vested with the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence), Kochi, to collect the information, thus, the role of “Income-tax Officer (Intelligence)” and that of the “Assessing Officer” as per the Manual of Office Procedure is totally different, but the Tribunal did not address such issues, though, specifically raised in the memorandum of appeals. vi. In support of the aforementioned contention, the counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kathiroor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (CIB) and Others [(2014) 360 ITR 243 (SC)] wherein, while challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under 133(6) of the Act, it was specifically held that the domain of holding the enquiry, including issuance of notice, vested only with the 'Assessing authority'. 4.Per contra, the learned counsel Sri.P.K.Ravindranatha Menon appearing for the Revenue relied on the notification dated 19.8.2011, annexed along with the statement of the respondents in ITA.265/19 as (Annexure A) and contended that it envisages clause for empowering Director or Director General of Income-tax (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation) for initiation of proceedings specified under Section 120 of the Act for issuance of order and directions to the Income-tax authorities.
He buttressed his arguments, supporting the action of the authorities, in raising demand of penalty, as, appellants did not comply with the requirement envisaged under section 133. Section 120 confers the jurisdiction upon the 'Income- tax Authorities' to exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the functions, or as the case may be, assigned to such authorities in accordance with the directions of the Board. By Clause 2 of the notification dated 19.8.2011, Directors of Income-tax specified in column (2) of Schedule 2 was empowered to issue orders in writing to the income-tax authorities subordinate to them for the exercise of such powers under the Act. 6.The expression 'Income-tax Authority' is of a wide amplitude and would also include 'Assessing Officer'. Notification dated 10.12.2014 empowered the Director to issue orders in writing to the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) for the purpose of verification only. 7.The provisions of sub-section 6 of section 133 and the proviso thereto cannot be read in isolation but in conjunction with section 120, particularly sub-section 2 thereof.
Almost identical question has been deliberated upon by Division Bench of this Court in Kodur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. And Others v. Director of Income Tax (Intelligence) and Another [(2014) 367 ITR 22 (Ker)]. In the aforementioned case, an issue relating to the legality of notice, was challenged, by relying upon the judgment in Kathiroor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) and it was held that as per the notification dated 19.8.2011 which was in vogue, the Directors of Income-tax had all the powers to issue orders in writing in relation to and in connection with collection, collation, verification and dissemination of information. The validity of notices under challenge and the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) to issue the notices, were upheld. 9.Vide order/notification dated 1.11.2011, the Income-tax Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, Alappuzha, Kochi and Thrissur were authorised to function as Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) and by subsequent letter dated 2.9.2013, handed over during the course of hearing, the Director of Income-tax (Intelligence) authorised the Income-tax Officers (Intelligence) to issue notices to Co-operative Banks/Urban Co-operative Banks/Credit Co-operative Societies, calling for information. The scope of enquiry was in respect of the survey.
It was further argued that there is no merit in the appeals nor any questions of law arises for determination and prayed for dismissal of the appeals.
We have heard the counsel on both sides, perused the records, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force in the submissions and the reasons are not one but many.
Before adverting to the reasons, it would be in the fitness of things to extract the provisions of Sections 120 and 133 of the Act. “Jurisdiction of income-tax authorities
(1) Income-tax authorities shall exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the functions conferred on, or, as the case may be, assigned to such authorities by or under this Act in accordance with such directions as the Board may issue for the exercise of the powers and performance of the functions by all or any of those authorities. Explanation- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any Income-tax authority, being an authority higher in rank, may,if so directed by the Board, exercise the powers and perform the functions of the income tax authority lower in rank and any such direction issued by the Board shall be deemed to be a direction issued under sub-section (1). (2) The directions of the Board under sub-section (1) may authorise any other income-tax authority to issue orders in writing for the exercise of the powers and performance of the Functions by all or any of the other income-tax authorities who are subordinate to it. (3) In issuing the directions or orders referred to in sub- sections (1) and (2), the Board or other income-tax authority authorised by it may have regard to any one or more of the following criteria, namely:- (a) territorial area; (b)persons or classes of persons; (c) incomes or classes of income; and (d) cases or classes of cases. (4) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2), the Board may by general or special order, and subject
to such conditions,
restrictions
or limitations as may be specified therein,- (a) authorise any Principal Director General or Director General or other income-tax authority as may be assigned to him by the Board; (b) empower the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director to perform such functions of any "Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to issue orders in writing that the powers and functions conferred on, or as the case may be, assigned to, the Assessing Officer by or under this Act in respect of any specified area or persons or classes of persons or incomes or classes of income or cases or classes of cases, shall be exercised or performed by an Additional Commissioner or an Additional Director or a Joint Commissioner or a Joint Director and, where any order is made under this clause, references in any other provision of this Act or in any rule made thereunder to the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be references to such Additional Commissioner or Additional Director or Joint Commissioner or Joint Director by whom the powers and functions are to be exercised or performed under such order, and any provision of this Act requiring approval or sanction of the Joint Commissioner shall not apply. (5) The directions and orders referred to in sub-sections (I) and (2) may wherever considered necessary or appropriate for the proper management of the work, require two or more Assessing Officers (whether or not of the same class) to exercise and perform, concurrently, the powers and functions in respect of any area or persons or classes of persons or incomes or classes of income or cases or classes of cases; and, where such powers and functions are exercised and performed concurrently by the Assessing Officers of different classes, any authority lower in rank amongst them shall exercise the powers and perform the functions as any higher authority amongst them may direct, and, further, references in any other provision of this Act or in any rule made thereunder to the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be references to such higher authority and any provision of this Act requiring approval or sanction of any such authority shall not apply. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any direction or order issued this section, or in section 124, the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that for the purpose of furnishing of the return of income or the doing of any other act or thing under this Act or any rule made thereunder by any person or class of persons, the income- tax authority exercising and performing the powers and functions in relation to the said person or class of persons shall be such authority as may be specified in the notification.” “Power to call for information.-
The Assessing Officer, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Joint Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) may, for the purposes of this Act,- (1) require any firm to furnish him with a return of the names and addresses of the partners of the firm and their respective shares; (2) require any Hindu undivided family to furnish him with a return of the names and addresses of the manager and the members of the family; (3) require any person whom he has reason to believe to be a trustee, guardian or agent, to furnish him with a return of the names of the persons for or of whom he is trustee, guardian or agent, and of their addresses; (4) require any assessee to furnish a statement of the names and addresses of all persons to whom he has paid in any previous year rent, interest, commission, royalty or brokerage, or any annuity, not being any annuity taxable under the head “Salaries” amounting to more than one thousand rupees, or such higher amount as may be prescribed, together with particulars of all such payments made; (5) require any dealer, broker or agent or any person concerned in the management of a stock or commodity exchange to furnish a statement of the names and addresses of all persons to whom he or the exchange has paid any sum in connection with the transfer, whether by way of sale, exchange or otherwise, of assets, or on whose behalf or from whom he or the exchange has received any such sum, together with particulars of all such payments and receipts; (6) require any person including a banking company or any officer thereof, to furnish information in relation to such points or matters, or to furnish statements of accounts and affairs verified in the manner specified by the Assessing Officer, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Joint Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals), giving information in relation to such points or matters as, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Joint Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals), will be useful for, or relevant to, any enquiry or proceeding under this Act: Provided that the powers referred to in clause (6), may also be exercised by the Principal Director General or Director General, the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner, the Principal Director or Director or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or the Joint Director or Deputy Director or Assistant Director: Provided further that the power in respect of an inquiry, in a case where no proceeding is pending, shall not be exercised by any income-tax authority below the rank of Principal Director or Director or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, other than the Joint Director or Deputy Director or Assistant Director, without the prior approval of the Principal Director or Director or, as the case may be, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner: Provided also that for the purposes of an agreement referred to in section 90 or section 90A, an income-tax authority notified under sub-section (2) of section 131 may exercise all the powers conferred under this section, notwithstanding that no proceedings are pending before it or any other income-tax authority."
(i) A cumulative reading of the aforesaid, particularly section 120, would reveal that the Income-tax Officers are vested with powers to exercise all functions conferred upon from time to time, including the Directors to issue orders in writing for the exercise of the powers and performance of their duties. From the plain and simple perusal of sub section 2 of section 120 (emphasis supplied), it is discerned that the senior officers of the Income-tax authorities have power to further issue directions or orders in writing for undertaking the task as per the provisions of the Act. Notification dated 19.8.2011 which was already in vogue prior to the issuance of the impugned notices, authorised the Directors of Income-tax to issue orders in writing to the Income-tax authorities subordinate to them, for exercise of such powers under the Act. The relevant portion of the notification and its applicability to Kochi at Sl.No.18 reads thus: SECTION 120(1) AND (2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 - INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES - JURISDICTION OF DIRECTOR GENERAL/DIRECTOR (INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION) - SUPERSESSION OF NOTIFICATION NOS. S.0, 883(E), DATED 14-9-2001: S.0. 494(E), DATED 13-3-2008; S.0.855(E) AND S.O.856(E), BOTH DATED 31-5-2007 NOTIFICATION NO.42/2011 DATED 19.8-2011 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 120 of the Income tax Act, 1961 [43 of 1961], and in supersession of the notifications of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Number(s) S.0. 883(E), dated 14 September, 2001, S.O. 494(1), dated 13th March, 2008, 8.O. 855(E), dated 31st May, 2007 and S.O,856(E), dated 31st May, 2007, the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby directs that:- (i) the Director General of Income-tax specified in column (2) of the Schedule -1 annexed to this notification, having his headquarters at the place specified in the corresponding entries in column (3) of the said Schedule shall exercise the powers and perform the functions in respect of such territorial area or of such persons or classes of persons or of such incomes or classes of incomes or of such cases or classes of cases, in respect of which the Directors of Income-tax specified in the corresponding entries in column (4) of the said Schedule are having jurisdiction; (ii) the Directors of Income-tax specified in column (2) annexed to this notification, having their headquarters at the places specified in the corresponding entries in column (3) of the said Schedule-2, shall exercise powers and perform functions specified in column (5) of the aforesaid Schedule in respect of territorial areas specified in column (4) of the aforesaid Schedule;
The Directors of Income-tax specified in column (2) of the said Schedule-2 shall issue orders in writing to the income-tax authorities subordinate to them for the exercise of such powers under the income-tax Act by them, which may be specified therein, in respect of territorial areas under their jurisdiction. Schedule-1 Sl. No. Designation of Income- tax Authorities Headquarters Directors of Income-tax 1 2 3 4 1 Director General of Income-tax (Intelligence
and Criminal Investigation), Delhi New Delhi I) Director of Income-tax (Intelligence and Criminal
Investigation, Administration), Delhi ii)
Directors
of Income-tax (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation) iii)
Directors
of Income-tax (Intelligence)
Schedule-2 Sl. No. Designation of Income-tax Authorities Headquarter s Jurisdiction Powers and functions 1 2 3 4 5 1. .. 17 .. .. .. .. 18 Director of Income-tax (Intelligence), Kochi Kochi, Kerala Area within the State of Kerala and Union Territory of lakshadweep and Minicoy All powers conferred under the Income-tax Act, 1961 related to and in connection with the collection, collation, verification and dissemination of information in respect of territorial are mentioned in column(4) (ii) Though in the first blush, the argument of Sri.C.A.Jojo looked attractive, but on conjoint reading of the contents of the notifications dated 10.12.2014 and 19.8.2011, there is hardly any substance in the submission that the 'Income-tax Assessing Officer' would exclusively have jurisdiction to call for verification vide notices, impugned and not fall within the purview of 'Income tax Authorities'. The expression 'Income- tax authorities' is of a wide amplitude and also include Assessing Officer as defined under Section 133 of the Act. The role of both the authorities, besides verification, is also for collection, dissemination as well as enquiry. It is a matter of record that the appellants did not provide any information on receipt of the impugned notice resulting into imposition of penalty. (iii) There is nothing in the notification dated 19.8.2011, which would arrest the power of the Director of Income-tax to authorise Income-tax authorities to initiate actions. By specifying section 133, in the notification dated 10.12.2014, would not mean that the Income-tax authorities did not have any jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice in the year 2013. The procedure prescribed under sub-section 6 of section 133 is akin to a survey in order to ascertain whether the Co-operative Banks failed to divulge information with regard to the receipts of more than 5 lakhs within three immediate assessment years.
(iv) Reliance on the manual, it is only with regard to the procedure which would not partake the powers and the functions of the authorities enumerated in the Principal Act. (v) In Kathiroor Service Bank (supra), the question which came to be pondered was that it pertained to challenge of the notices, issued under section 133(6) by various Income- tax authorities. In none of the paras, a distinction has been drawn that the 'Assessing Officer' would not mean the 'Income-tax Authorities'. The powers under section 133(6) for repetition are in the nature of survey and a general enquiry to identify persons who are likely to have taxable income or whether they complied with the provisions of the Act. (vi) On the contrary, the issue raised in the present appeals have, almost, been answered in Kodur Service Co- operative Bank (supra). In the aforementioned judgment, no dispute was raised questioning the legality of the notices, whereby similarly situated cooperative banks were called upon to furnish details of the entire deposits of more than Rs.5 lakhs in an year for the last three previous years in the saving bank account, on the premise, that the said notice was not issued by the authority specified in section 133(6) of the Act. While considering the aforementioned argument, the Division Bench in paragraphs 6 and 7 held as follows:
“6. Coming to the first issue whether the authority which signed exhibit P1 had power to issue such notice to various co-operative societies, we have orders and notification referred to above issued by the Director of Income-tax indicating who are the authorities who could discharge various functions. The authority who issued exhibit P1 under section 120(2) of the Income-tax Act by notification dated August 19, 2011, at SL No. 18 is the Director of Income-tax, having head quarters at Kochi, Kerala, who has jurisdiction over the area within the State of Kerala, Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Minicoy. He has all powers envisaged under the Income-tax Act related to and in connection with collection, collation, verification and dissemination of information in respect of the area over which he has jurisdiction. By office order dated November 1, 2011, the Income-tax Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, Alappuzha, Kochi and Thrissur were authorised to function as Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) of the above three places. Letter dated September 2, 2013, is issued by the Director of Income- tax (Intelligence) to the above Income-tax Officers (Intelligence) authorising 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) of the Income-tax Act. By virtue of these documents, the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) is the authorised person who could issue exhibit P1, therefore, the allegation that the officer who issued exhibit P1 had no authority has to be rejected.
Then coming to section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, in Kathiroor Service Co-operative Bank's case (supra), various co-operative societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act engaged in banking business were before this court when notices were issued to the societies under section 133 (6) of the Act calling for particulars of cash transaction above rupees one lakh with details of account holders/deposit holders in the format prepared by the authority issuing the notices. The societies challenged the validity of the notices. After referring to section 133(6) of the Act, prior to the introduction of the second proviso and its effect and after the introduction of the second proviso to section 133(6), their Lordships opined that there was no scope for interfering with validity of notices. “
From the reliance on the notification dated 1.11.2011, it is decipherable that the power of collection, collation and dissemination which earlier vested with Central Information Branch was transferred to Income-tax officer (Intelligence), which would not mean that the notices issued and imposition of penalty by Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) lacked jurisdiction.
As an upshot, we are of the view that the present appeals do not involve determination of any substantial questions. These appeals are accordingly dismissed upholding the orders under challenge. There shall be no order as to costs. C.K.Abdul Rehim, Judge Amit Rawal, Judge kkb.
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 133
- Akhand Reality, Vadodara vs The ACIT, Circle-1(3), VadodaraITA 1914/AHD/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Motion Creations, Surat vs ITO, Ward 2(3)(1), SuratITA 450/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Apr 2026AY 2012-13
- Servewell Household Appliance, Rajkot vs ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), RajkotITA 732/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
- Anita Basak, Kolkata vs ACIT, CC 1(1), KolkataITA 2174/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
- Rakshit Estates Private Limited, Gurgaon vs Income Tax Officer, GurgaonITA 3615/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
