We ignored the s.133(6) notices because we thought the officer had no business asking. What does that cost?
A penalty under s.272A(2)(c) that the Tribunal will not disturb. Twenty-one appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal held the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) had jurisdiction to issue the notices, that the penalty orders were within the limitation in s.275(1)(c), and that no valid reason having been offered for not furnishing the information, there was no reasonable cause under s.273B.
Decided by the ITAT (George George K., Judicial Member) on 2017-08-23, reported as ITA Nos. 473/Coch/2015, 243/Coch/2013, 544/Coch/2015, 190/Coch/2016, 126, 146, 152, 153, 158, 159, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 200, 201, 202, 204, 206 and 217/Coch/2017 (21 appeals heard together). It bears on section 272A(2)(c), section 133(6), section 273B, section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Penalty and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters.
It is the practical answer to the common instinct that a third-party notice can safely be left unanswered while the point of jurisdiction is considered. Doubt about the officer's power is not reasonable cause.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Twenty-one service co-operative banks were served with notices under s.133(6) by the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) calling for information. Many of the notices were never responded to. Penalties were imposed under s.272A(2)(c) for the failure to furnish the information. In one of the cases the penalty proceeding was initiated by a notice under s.274 dated 12 August 2014 and the penalty order was passed on 19 September 2014. The societies appealed, challenging the officer's jurisdiction, the limitation for the penalty, and the absence of reasonable cause.
All 21 appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal held that the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) had jurisdiction to issue notices under s.133(6) and had not erred in issuing them where the approval of the supervisory authority had been obtained. On limitation, the penalty proceeding having been initiated on 12 August 2014 and the order passed on 19 September 2014, the order was within the time prescribed. On s.273B, the assessee had offered no valid reason for not furnishing the information called for under s.133(6), and the Tribunal held that the order imposing penalty could not be quashed.
On jurisdiction the Tribunal proceeded from the Supreme Court's decision in Kathiroor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v CIT (CIB) and from the CBDT's Circular No. 717 dated 14 August 1995 explaining the 1995 amendment, treating the officer's power as established once the supervisory approval was in place. On limitation it applied s.275(1)(c) by reference to the date of initiation and the date of the order. On reasonable cause it looked for a reason and found none: what the record showed was that many notices had simply gone unanswered and there was a total lack of co-operation. Section 273B protects a person who shows reasonable cause; it does not protect silence.
the assessee has not offered any valid reason for not furnishing the information called for under section 133(6)
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppA penalty under s.272A(2)(c) that the Tribunal will not disturb. Twenty-one appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal held the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) had jurisdiction to issue the notices, that the penalty orders were within the limitation in s.275(1)(c), and that no valid reason having been offered for not furnishing the information, there was no reasonable cause under s.273B. This was decided by the ITAT (George George K., Judicial Member) and bears on section 272A(2)(c), section 133(6), section 273B, section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA Nos. 473/Coch/2015, 243/Coch/2013, 544/Coch/2015, 190/Coch/2016, 126, 146, 152, 153, 158, 159, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 200, 201, 202, 204, 206 and 217/Coch/2017 (21 appeals heard together). It is the practical answer to the common instinct that a third-party notice can safely be left unanswered while the point of jurisdiction is considered. Doubt about the officer's power is not reasonable cause. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Answer the notice, or answer it under protest, rather than not answering; non-compliance is the thing penalised.
Twenty-one service co-operative banks were served with notices under s.133(6) by the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) calling for information. Many of the notices were never responded to. Penalties were imposed under s.272A(2)(c) for the failure to furnish the information. In one of the cases the penalty proceeding was initiated by a notice under s.274 dated 12 August 2014 and the penalty order was passed on 19 September 2014. The societies appealed, challenging the officer's jurisdiction, the limitation for the penalty, and the absence of reasonable cause. The matter was decided on 2017-08-23 by the ITAT (George George K., Judicial Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. All 21 appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal held that the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) had jurisdiction to issue notices under s.133(6) and had not erred in issuing them where the approval of the supervisory authority had been obtained. On limitation, the penalty proceeding having been initiated on 12 August 2014 and the order passed on 19 September 2014, the order was within the time prescribed. On s.273B, the assessee had offered no valid reason for not furnishing the information called for under s.133(6), and the Tribunal held that the order imposing penalty could not be quashed.
On jurisdiction the Tribunal proceeded from the Supreme Court's decision in Kathiroor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v CIT (CIB) and from the CBDT's Circular No. 717 dated 14 August 1995 explaining the 1995 amendment, treating the officer's power as established once the supervisory approval was in place. On limitation it applied s.275(1)(c) by reference to the date of initiation and the date of the order. On reasonable cause it looked for a reason and found none: what the record showed was that many notices had simply gone unanswered and there was a total lack of co-operation. Section 273B protects a person who shows reasonable cause; it does not protect silence. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "the assessee has not offered any valid reason for not furnishing the information called for under section 133(6)" The decision followed or applied Kathiroor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v CIT (CIB), (2013) 360 ITR 243 (SC) - relied on for the officer's power to issue the notice; CBDT Circular No. 717 dated 14 August 1995 - relied on; G.M. Breweries Ltd v Union of India (Bombay High Court, 24 August 1999) - relied on; Union of India v Gopal Das Gupta, (1987) 167 ITR 39 (SC) - relied on.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2017-08-23 and is reported as ITA Nos. 473/Coch/2015, 243/Coch/2013, 544/Coch/2015, 190/Coch/2016, 126, 146, 152, 153, 158, 159, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 200, 201, 202, 204, 206 and 217/Coch/2017 (21 appeals heard together). Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 272A(2)(c), section 133(6), section 273B, section 275(1)(c), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. All 21 appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal held that the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) had jurisdiction to issue notices under s.133(6) and had not erred in issuing them where the approval of the supervisory authority had been obtained. On limitation, the penalty proceeding having been initiated on 12 August 2014 and the order passed on 19 September 2014, the order was within the time prescribed. On s.273B, the assessee had offered no valid reason for not furnishing the information called for under s.133(6), and the Tribunal held that the order imposing penalty could not be quashed. It arises in Penalty and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters, on section 272A(2)(c), section 133(6), section 273B, section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by George George K., Judicial Member. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. If you dispute jurisdiction, say so in a reply and furnish what you can at the same time. Check the penalty's limitation under s.275(1)(c) - six months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceeding was initiated is the usual control, and it is checked from the s.274 notice. Build the reasonable cause record contemporaneously: requests for time, volume of data, branch retrieval, any court order relied on.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. No decision applying, affirming, doubting or overruling this order was located. The Cochin Bench took the same course in Mekkadampu Service Co-op Bank Ltd v Jt DIT on 8 July 2019, and the Kerala High Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) in Enanalloor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v ITO on 19 February 2020. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The order was passed by a single Judicial Member disposing of 21 appeals together, so the facts recited are composite and the limitation dates quoted belong to one of them. The Supreme Court decision in Kathiroor, on which the jurisdiction finding rests, could not be opened in a verifiable full text; it is recorded here only as an authority this Bench relied on, with the citation as this Bench gives it. G.M. Breweries Ltd is recorded as the Bench identified it and was not separately opened. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
All 21 appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal held that the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) had jurisdiction to issue notices under s.133(6) and had not erred in issuing them where the approval of the supervisory authority had been obtained. On limitation, the penalty proceeding having been initiated on 12 August 2014 and the order passed on 19 September 2014, the order was within the time prescribed. On s.273B, the assessee had offered no valid reason for not furnishing the information called for under s.133(6), and the Tribunal held that the order imposing penalty could not be quashed.
TaxSphere, “Kalpakancherry Service Co-op Bank Ltd v Addl. DIT (Intelligence)”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/kalpakancherry-service-co-op-bank-v-addl-dit-272a-2-c-penalty/ (validity last checked 2026-09-17)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The s.133(6) notices went unanswered and the s.272A(2)(c) penalties have been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Is there anything left to run before the Tribunal?
The notice came from an Income-tax Officer (Intelligence), not from my Assessing Officer. Does he have the power?
The penalty under s.271D came more than six months after it was initiated. Is it automatically time-barred?
The show-cause notice came a year after the AO referred the matter to the JCIT. Which date starts the s.275(1)(c) clock?
