Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. Secretary, Govt. of India , (SC) BS117421
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- B.N. Kirpal and A. Pasayat, JJ.

Petn. (S) Special Leave to Appeal (Civil No. 3804 of 2002 with SLP (C) Nos. 3898, 4076 and 4074 of 2002). D/d. 25.2.2002.

Karnataka Bank Ltd. - Petitioner

Versus

Secretary, Govt. of India and others - Respondents

WITH

M/s. Manipal Co-op. Bank Ltd. - Petitioner

Versus

Income-tax Officer, Mangalore and others - Respondents

WITH

South Canara Dist. Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. - Petitioner

Versus

Income-tax Officer, Mangalore and others - Respondents

WITH

Gurusiddheshwar Co-op. Bank Ltd. - Petitioner

Versus

Income-tax Officer, Hubli and others - Respondents.

For the Petitioner :- Mr. K. Sarangan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Kunur and Mr. N. N. Keshwani, Advocates.

Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 133(6), 2nd proviso - Power to call for information - Held that the pendency of any enquiry is not necessary precondition but it is only a safeguard before such power can be invoked - Further held that obtaining the approval of Director or the Commissioner is necessary - Petitions dismissed.

[Paras 3 and 4]

ORDER

It is contended by the learned senior Counsel for the petitioner that the High Court has wrongly construed the provisions of Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act and the notice dated 7th July, 2000 under that sub-section 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 bank's customers is not envisaged by the said sub-section.

2. We are unable to agree with the learned Counsel, Section 133(6), after introduction of the second proviso, reads as follows :

3. It is clear from the mere reading of the said provision that it is not necessary that any inquiry should have commenced with the issuance of notice or otherwise before Section 133(6) could have been invoked. It is with the view to collect information that power is given under Section 133(6) to issue notice, inter alia, requiring banking company to furnish information in respect of such points or matters as may be useful or relevant. The second proviso 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. In the instant case, the notice dated 7th July, 2000 indicates that it was at the instance of the Director of Income-tax (Investigation) that the information was sought for.

4. We agree with the construction of the Section as placed by the single Judge and the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. These Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.

Petitions dismissed.