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?
On these facts, no. The Cochin Bench reproduced its own earlier order in Kakoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, which had held a penalty under s.272A(2)(c) valid where no reasonable cause within s.273B had been furnished for not answering the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence), and, finding the facts identical, held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in upholding the penalty orders. All nine appeals and the three stay applications were dismissed. The order adds no reasoning of its own, on s.273B, on jurisdiction or on how the daily figure is computed.
Decided by the ITAT (Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member and George George K., Judicial Member) on 2019-07-08, reported as ITA Nos. 418, 392, 405, 262, 261, 260, 259, 235 and 226/Coch/2019 with SA Nos. 35, 36 and 37/Coch/2019. It bears on section 272A(2)(c), section 133(6), section 273B of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Penalty and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters.
It is the Cochin Bench applying its own earlier line to a group of co-operative banks, and it shows how little is left once the jurisdiction point has gone and no reasonable cause has been put on the record before the penalty order. Because the Bench decided by adopting an earlier order rather than by reasoning the points for itself, its weight is the weight of the order it adopts, not of fresh reasoning.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Nine co-operative banks failed to furnish information called for under s.133(6) by the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence). Penalties were imposed under s.272A(2)(c) at a daily rate over the period of default. For Mekkadampu Service Co-operative Bank the penalty was Rs 49,900 for the period 25 September 2013 to 5 February 2015. The societies appealed, challenging the officer's jurisdiction, the limitation and the absence of reasonable cause.
All nine appeals and the three stay applications were dismissed and the penalties were upheld. The Bench's own holding is one of adoption: having reproduced the earlier Cochin Bench order, it held that, that order being identical to the facts of the present cases, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in upholding the orders passed under s.272A(2)(c). The findings that the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) had jurisdiction, that the penalties were within time and that no reasonable cause within s.273B had been furnished are not stated by this Bench as its own reasons; they are in the order it reproduced.
The Bench reproduced the earlier order of the Cochin Bench, introducing it with 'On identical facts the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of Kakoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) had held that the penalty imposed u/s 272A(2)(c) of the Act is valid. The relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as follow:'. That reproduced order held that, no reasonable cause as mentioned in s.273B having been furnished by the assessee for not furnishing the information sought by the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) under s.133(6), the order imposing penalty could not be quashed. It is written in the first person singular - 'I am of the view' - and so cannot be the reasons of this two-member Bench. The present Bench added nothing to it: finding the facts identical, it adopted the conclusion and upheld the penalty orders. On how the daily figure is arrived at the order says nothing; the amounts were computed at the daily rate by the officer and were upheld as they stood.
we hold that the CIT(A) is justified in upholding the orders passed u/s 272A(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act
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 WhatsAppOn these facts, no. The Cochin Bench reproduced its own earlier order in Kakoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, which had held a penalty under s.272A(2)(c) valid where no reasonable cause within s.273B had been furnished for not answering the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence), and, finding the facts identical, held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in upholding the penalty orders. All nine appeals and the three stay applications were dismissed. The order adds no reasoning of its own, on s.273B, on jurisdiction or on how the daily figure is computed. This was decided by the ITAT (Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member and George George K., Judicial Member) and bears on section 272A(2)(c), section 133(6), section 273B of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA Nos. 418, 392, 405, 262, 261, 260, 259, 235 and 226/Coch/2019 with SA Nos. 35, 36 and 37/Coch/2019. It is the Cochin Bench applying its own earlier line to a group of co-operative banks, and it shows how little is left once the jurisdiction point has gone and no reasonable cause has been put on the record before the penalty order. Because the Bench decided by adopting an earlier order rather than by reasoning the points for itself, its weight is the weight of the order it adopts, not of fresh reasoning. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Work out the exposure on day one from the section itself: it fixes a sum for every day during which the failure continues, counted from the date specified in the notice.
Nine co-operative banks failed to furnish information called for under s.133(6) by the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence). Penalties were imposed under s.272A(2)(c) at a daily rate over the period of default. For Mekkadampu Service Co-operative Bank the penalty was Rs 49,900 for the period 25 September 2013 to 5 February 2015. The societies appealed, challenging the officer's jurisdiction, the limitation and the absence of reasonable cause. The matter was decided on 2019-07-08 by the ITAT (Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member and George George K., Judicial Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. All nine appeals and the three stay applications were dismissed and the penalties were upheld. The Bench's own holding is one of adoption: having reproduced the earlier Cochin Bench order, it held that, that order being identical to the facts of the present cases, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in upholding the orders passed under s.272A(2)(c). The findings that the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) had jurisdiction, that the penalties were within time and that no reasonable cause within s.273B had been furnished are not stated by this Bench as its own reasons; they are in the order it reproduced.
The Bench reproduced the earlier order of the Cochin Bench, introducing it with 'On identical facts the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of Kakoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) had held that the penalty imposed u/s 272A(2)(c) of the Act is valid. The relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as follow:'. That reproduced order held that, no reasonable cause as mentioned in s.273B having been furnished by the assessee for not furnishing the information sought by the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) under s.133(6), the order imposing penalty could not be quashed. It is written in the first person singular - 'I am of the view' - and so cannot be the reasons of this two-member Bench. The present Bench added nothing to it: finding the facts identical, it adopted the conclusion and upheld the penalty orders. On how the daily figure is arrived at the order says nothing; the amounts were computed at the daily rate by the officer and were upheld as they stood. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "we hold that the CIT(A) is justified in upholding the orders passed u/s 272A(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act" The decision followed or applied Kakoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd (Cochin Bench of the Tribunal) - the earlier order reproduced in full and adopted as identical on facts; this order's holding is that adoption.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2019-07-08 and is reported as ITA Nos. 418, 392, 405, 262, 261, 260, 259, 235 and 226/Coch/2019 with SA Nos. 35, 36 and 37/Coch/2019. 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, 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 nine appeals and the three stay applications were dismissed and the penalties were upheld. The Bench's own holding is one of adoption: having reproduced the earlier Cochin Bench order, it held that, that order being identical to the facts of the present cases, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in upholding the orders passed under s.272A(2)(c). The findings that the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) had jurisdiction, that the penalties were within time and that no reasonable cause within s.273B had been furnished are not stated by this Bench as its own reasons; they are in the order it reproduced. It arises in Penalty and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters, on section 272A(2)(c), section 133(6), section 273B of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member and 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. Stop the clock by furnishing, even partially and under protest; the period of default is what drives the number. Note the change in rate - s.272A(2) now provides five hundred rupees for every day of default, the figure substituted by the Finance Act 2022 with effect from 1 April 2022; these orders apply the earlier one hundred rupees a day. If you are going to argue reasonable cause, put the reason on the record before the penalty order, not in the appeal - that is what was missing here. Do not cite this order for reasoning it does not contain; cite it, if at all, as an order following the earlier Cochin Bench order it reproduces.
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. It follows the same course as the Cochin Bench's earlier order in Kalpakancherry Service Co-op Bank Ltd, decided 23 August 2017, and the Kerala High Court's decision in Enanalloor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, decided 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.
This is an order of adoption, which is worth less than an order that reasons. The finding on s.273B - 'Since there is no reasonable cause furnished by the assessee as mentioned u/s 273B of the I T Act for non furnishing of information sought by the ITO(intelligence) u/s 133(6) of the Act I am of the view that the order imposing penalty cannot be quashed' - sits inside the reproduced earlier Cochin Bench order, not in this Bench's own words, and the singular 'I am of the view' confirms it. The name of that earlier order came back as 'Kakoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.' and is recorded as the copy read prints it; the spelling was not independently confirmed. The rate applied in these orders is one hundred rupees for every day of default, which was the rate in s.272A(2) at the material time. The department's own text of s.272A records that the words 'five hundred' were substituted for 'one' by the Finance Act 2022 with effect from 1 April 2022, so a current default runs at the higher figure; that change is stated here from the statute, not from this order, which predates it. The order disposes of nine appeals with different periods and amounts, so the figures recited belong to the lead case. A check against the document corrected three things: the key quotation and the s.273B and jurisdiction findings were attributed to this Bench when they belong to the order it reproduced; the entry's account of the daily computation as something the Tribunal reasoned about was the drafter's inference and has been removed; and ITA No. 392/Coch/2019 was missing from the list of appeal numbers, which is why the facts correctly speak of nine banks. 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 nine appeals and the three stay applications were dismissed and the penalties were upheld. The Bench's own holding is one of adoption: having reproduced the earlier Cochin Bench order, it held that, that order being identical to the facts of the present cases, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in upholding the orders passed under s.272A(2)(c). The findings that the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) had jurisdiction, that the penalties were within time and that no reasonable cause within s.273B had been furnished are not stated by this Bench as its own reasons; they are in the order it reproduced.
TaxSphere, “Mekkadampu Service Co-op Bank Ltd v Jt DIT (I & CI)”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/mekkadampu-service-co-op-bank-v-jt-dit-272a-daily-rate/ (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.
We ignored the s.133(6) notices because we thought the officer had no business asking. What does that cost?
The notice came from an Income-tax Officer (Intelligence), not from my Assessing Officer. Does he have the power?
You took a cash loan and now face penalty equal to the whole amount. Is there any relief?
Must penalty be imposed just because the law permits it?
