IRIMBILIYAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.10445 vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF I0NCOME TAX (I AND CI)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/318/2019HC KeralaKLHC01088343201909 September 2020Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court followed the Supreme Court's decision in Kathiroor Service Cooperative Bank Limited, which held that the Income Tax Officer has the necessary jurisdiction under the said proviso. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer to proceed under the second proviso of Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that such action requires prior authorization from the Director or Commissioner.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the Income Tax Officer requires authorization from higher authorities to act under the second proviso of Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 18TH BHADRA, 1942 ITA.No.318 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 490/COCH/2019 DATED 20-09-2019 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT: IRIMBILIYAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.10445 IRIMBILIYAM P.O., VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: 1 THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I AND CI) KOCHI, PIN-682 018. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOCHI, PIN-682 018. 3 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOCHI, PIN-682 037. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC. IT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA.No.318 OF 2019 2 JUDGMENT Vinod Chandran, J. The question as to whether the Income Tax Officer has jurisdiction to proceed under second proviso of Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act without authorisation of the Director or the Commissioner as the case may be, was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Department by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kathiroor Service Cooperative Bank Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax (Cib) and Others 2014 (14) SCC 352. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we dismiss the appeal. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- T.R.RAVI JUDGE Pn 09/09

ITA.No.318 OF 2019 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.9.2015 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 272A (2) C ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.5.2010 IN ITA NO.78/ITG/EKM/CIT(A). ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.490/COCH/2019 DATED 20.9.2019.

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →