| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 96 2004 SLD 96 2004 PTD 2170 (2002) 255 ITR 508 (2003) 87 TAX 261 |
Supreme Court of India
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 3804, 3898, 4076 and 4074 of 2002, decision dated: 25-02-2002
B. N. KIRPAL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ
K. Sarangan, Senior Advocate (Sanjay Kunur and N.N. Keshwani, Advocates with him) for Petitioners.
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 3804, 3898, 4076 and 4074 of 2002, decision dated: 25-02-2002
B. N. KIRPAL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ
K. Sarangan, Senior Advocate (Sanjay Kunur and N.N. Keshwani, Advocates with him) for Petitioners.
KARNATAKA BANK LTD. and others
VS
SECRETARY, GOVENRMENT OF INDIA arid others
Law: Income Tax Act, 1961
Section: 133,133(6)
Income tax......Power to call for information Information on points or matters useful for proceedings Scope of provisions Pending proceedings not necessary before issuing notice calling for information Approval of Director, or Commissioner sufficient if no proceeding pending Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.133(6), second proviso. It is not necessary that any inquiry should have commenced with the issuance of notice or otherwise before section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be invoked calling for information in relation to useful or relevant points or matters. It. is with a view to collecting information that power is given under section 133(6) toy issue notice, requiring a banking company to furnish information in respect of such points or matters as may be useful or relevant. The second proviso to section 133(6) makes it clear that such information can be sought for even when no proceeding under the Act is pending; the only safeguard being that before this power can be invoked the approval of the Director or the Commissioner, as the case may be, has to be obtained. Held, accordingly, on the facts, that since the notice under section 133(6) seeking information was issued at the instance of the Director of Income tax (Investigation), it was valid. ORDER It is contended by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the High Court has wrongly construed the provisions of section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notice, dated July 7, 2000, under that subsection could not have been issued asking .for information regarding repayment of loans for the periods referred to in the said notice. Learned senior counsel submits that there was no inquiry which was pending and that the omnibus notice requiring the furnishing of information in respect of the banks customers is not envisaged by the said subsection. We are unable to agree with learned counsel. Section 133(6), after introduction of the second proviso, reads as follows " 133. The Assessing Officer, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Joint Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) may; for the purpose of this Act, ... (6) require any person, including a banking company or any officer…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492