Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.07 seconds)
M.V. Rajendran vs Income-Tax Officer And Anr. on 24 December, 2002 cites

Asstt. Director Of Inspection ... vs Kum. A.B. Shanthi on 3 May, 2002

9. The very object of Section 269SS which provides for acceptance and repayment of deposits in excess of limits provided therein only through account payee cheques or demand drafts is to ensure that such transactions do not take place in unaccounted money. In fact proceedings under Section 133(6) are essentially to ensure as to whether there is violation of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act. If Section 269SS is observed by co-operative societies and cooperative banks which they are bound to observe, then there should be no difficulty for them to furnish the details called for under Section 133(6). Therefore, the notice issued under Section 133(6) is essentially to verify whether there is compliance with Section 269SS by both depositors and acceptors, namely, co-operative societies and co-operative banks, and since Section 269SS is upheld by the Supreme Court in the decision referred to above, I do not think the petitioners can challenge the notice issued calling for details of deposits. It is worthwhile to look into the other provisions of Section 133 which provides for collection of information by the Income-tax Department from firms with regard to the names and addresses of the partners and their shares and from Hindu undivided families with regard to the names and addresses of the manager and the members of the family and requiring 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 more than one thousand rupees, or such higher amount as may be prescribed, together with particulars of all such payments made and requiring 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. Therefore, the powers under Section 133 are in the nature of survey and a general inquiry to identify persons who are likely to have taxable income and see whether there is compliance by them in regard to payment of tax. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the co-operative banks and co-operative societies are only opposing calling for details of the deposits held by them generally. They do not have any objection in giving details of deposits held by any particular person required by the Department. They further contended that the banking companies including nationalised banks are not called upon to furnish details generally with regard to deposits held by them. Learned standing counsel for the respondents denied this allegation and he has contended that the banking companies including nationalised banks are not immune from any enquiry under Section 133(6). I do not think any banking company including nationalised banks can claim any immunity from proceedings under Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act and all such institutions are bound to furnish information called for, though general in nature. The Department is free to ask for information about any particular person or to call for general information in regard to any matter they consider necessary. Section 133(6) does not refer to any enquiry about any particular person or assessee, but pertains to information in relation to "such points or matters" which the authority issuing notices needs. This clearly shows that information of a general nature can be called for and names and addresses of the depositors who hold deposits above a particular sum is certainly permissible. In fact as the section presently stands Section 133(6) is a power of general survey and is not related to any person and no banking company including a nationalised bank is entitled to claim any immunity from furnishing such information as contended by the petitioners. Therefore, their allegation of discrimination against them as against immunity alleged to be given to banking companies is non-existent and therefore, this argument also has to be rejected. In the circumstances, I hold that the notices are within the powers of the officers who issued the same and the co-operative societies and co-operative banks are bound to furnish the particulars called for in the notices, failing which the Department will be free to conduct search or take penal action permissible under the Act. However, having regard to the pendency of these original petitions, I grant the petitioners six weeks time to furnish the particulars to the concerned officers. Time for furnishing information called for under the impugned notices in these original petitions are extended by six weeks from today. The original petitions are devoid of any merit and are dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 157 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document
1