Section 272A(2)(c)

Section 272A(2)(c) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 272A(2)(c), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Enanalloor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v ITO (I & CI) High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  The notice came from an Income-tax Officer (Intelligence), not from my Assessing Officer. Does he have the power?
  Yes. A Division Bench held that the expression 'income-tax authorities' is of wide amplitude and also includes the Assessing Officer, that the s.133(6) procedure is akin to a survey, and that the powers are in the nature of a survey and a general enquiry to identify persons who are likely to have taxable income. On who may issue, the Bench adopted the Kerala High Court's earlier judgment in Kodur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, which it reproduced within its reasons and which held that by virtue of the notification of 19 August 2011 and the documents under it the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) is the authorised person. The appeals were dismissed and the penalties stood.
• Mekkadampu Service Co-op Bank Ltd v Jt DIT (I & CI) ITATHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  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.
• Kalpakancherry Service Co-op Bank Ltd v Addl. DIT (Intelligence) ITATHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  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.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.