TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (2) TMI 28
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erm/recurring deposits of Rs. 50,000 and above as on date along with their complete postal addresses, etc., they have filed the writ petitions. In the notice it is stated that the information is required in connection with the investigation of the appellants' case and the same is required under section 133(6) of the Act. According to the appellants section 133(6) does not clothe the respondents with any power for conducting a roving enquiry into the affairs of the appellants or regarding the deposits of money made by the customers of the appellants. According to them such power can be exercised only for gathering information in relation to any point or matter relevant to any proceedings under the Act. It is further stated that if the said sub-section is understood as giving a wide power it will affect the secrecy of their customers' account. It is their case that in order to invoke the provisions of section 133(6) of the Act some proceedings under the Act must be pending against the person with respect to whom the details are called for but no such details are furnished in the notice. The learned single judge dismissed the writ petitions by holding that the notices issued to the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port. Counsel also submitted that the learned single judge erred in relying on the decision rendered in the context of the provisions of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act to hold that the roving enquiry is permissible under section 133(6) of the Act. Counsel further submitted that the Calcutta High Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. ITO [1998] 231 ITR 612 had held that even after the insertion of the word "enquiry" in clause (6) of section 133 by the Finance Act, 1995, and the insertion of the second proviso thereto with effect from July 1, 1995, unless there is a proceeding pending against the assessee when the notice under section 133(6) was issued, the notice was liable to be quashed. Counsel further submitted that though the Supreme Court in Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. Secretary, Government of India [2002] 255 ITR 508, has held that the officers have got power under section 133(6), second proviso, to call for statements of the nature specified in the notices issued to the appellants, the Supreme Court did not have occasion to consider the arbitrary nature of the power given to the officers while deciding the matter. We have also heard learned standing counsel for the Revenue. He sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the Act. They have only contended that section 133(6) of the Act does not give any power to the officers of the Department to gather information regarding all the deposits made by the customers of the appellants and the name and addresses of those customers. In other words, the dispute is only regarding the scope and content of the provisions of section 133(6) of the Act. Section 133(6) of the Act as amended by Act 22 of 1995 with effect from July 1, 1995 reads as follows: "133. (6) require any person, including a banking company or any officer thereof, to furnish information in relation to such points or matters, or to furnish statements of accounts and affairs verified in the manner specified by the Assessing Officer, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) giving information in relation to such points or matters as, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) will be useful for, or relevant to, any inquiry or proceeding under this Act: Provided that the powers referred to in clause (6), may also be exercised by the Director-General, the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the power under section 133(6) of the Act can be invoked only for the purpose of deciding the case pending before the officer. However, there is no detailed reasoning given for taking the said view. The learned single judge observed that a cooperative society or a co-operative bank will come within the definition of "person" in section 2(31) of the Act and therefore co-operative societies/banks are not immune from proceedings under section 133(6) of the Act. It was further observed thus: "The objection is only against calling for particulars of depositors by the Department. This is only as part of the survey conducted by the Department to ensure that moneys deposited, in the co-operative societies and co-operative banks are accounted by such depositors. The society by itself cannot have any grievance against the notice because the notice does not contemplate any action against the society. Since it is a settled position that the authority empowered to do a thing will have auxiliary and necessary power to achieve the objective, none can have a doubt that the income-tax authorities whose duty it is to trace tax evaders and to bring them to book and compel them to pay tax can ask f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 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 gen....