Kathiroor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (CIB) & Ors. [2014] 360 ITR 243 (SC)
The appellant-assessee before the Supreme Court was a service co-operative rural bank. The Incometax Officer (CIB), Calicut, issued a notice on 2nd February, 2009 to the assessee u/s. 133(6) of the Act calling for general information regarding details of all persons (whether resident or non-resident) who have made (a) cash transactions (remittance, transfer, etc.) of Rs. 1,00,000 and above in any accounts and/or (b) time deposits (FDs, RDs, TDs, etc.) of Rs. 1,00,000 or above for the period of three years between 1st April, 2005 and 31st March, 2008. It was expressly stated therein that failure to furnish the aforesaid information would attract penal consequences. The assessee objected to the said notice on grounds, inter alia, that such notice seeking for information which is unrelated to any existing pending proceedings against the assessee could not be issued under the provisions of the Act and requested for withdrawal of the said notice.
The assessing authority addressed to the objections raised by the assessee and accordingly rejected them by letter dated 5th March, 2009. The assessing authority relied on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in M.V. Rajendran vs. ITO [(2003) 260 ITR 442 (Ker) ] wherein it was held that 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 the 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 address 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.
The assessee, aggrieved by the aforesaid, filed Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the notice dated 2nd February, 2009. The learned single judge held that the impugned notice was validly issued under the provisions of the Act and, therefore, dismissed the said petition.
Thereafter, the assessee approached the Division Bench of the High Court by way of Writ Appeal questioning the said notice on grounds, inter alia, that the issuance of such notice u/s. 133(6) was bad in law as section 133(6) only provides for power to seek information in case of pending proceedings under the Act and does not contemplate the powers to seek fishing information which is unrelated to any existing proceedings or which may enable the assessing authority to decide upon institution of proceedings under the Act. The Division Bench has observed that the questions raised therein was no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Karnataka Bank Ltd. vs. Secretary Government of India [2002] 9 SCC 106, and, accordingly dismissed the said appeal.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the assessee went before the Supreme Court in appeal.
The Supreme Court observed that before the introduction of amendment in section 133(6) in 1995, the Act only provided for issuance of notice in case of pending proceedings. As a Consequence of the said amendment, the scope of section 133(6) was expanded to include issuance of notice for the purposes of enquiry. The object of the amendment of section 133(6) by the Finance Act, 1995 (Act 22 of 1995), as explained by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in its circular showed that the legislative intention was to give wide powers to the officers, of course with the permission of the Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director of Investigation to gather particulars in the nature of survey and store those details in the computer so that the data so collected can be used for checking evasion of tax effectively.
The assessing authorities are now empowered to issue such notice calling for general information for the purposes of any enquiry in both cases: (a) where a proceeding is pending, and (b) where proceeding is not pending against the assessee. However, in the latter case, the assessing authority must obtain the prior approval of the Director or the Commissioner, as the case may be, before issuance of such notice. The word ‘enquiry’ would, thus, connote a request for information or questions to gather information either before the initiation of proceedings or during the pendency of proceedings; such information being useful for or relevant to the proceeding under the Act.
The Supreme Court referred to its decision in Karnataka Bank Ltd. vs. Secretary, Government of India [2002] 9 SCC 106, wherein it had examined the proposition whether a notice us/. 133(6) could be issued to seek information in cases where the proceedings are not pending and construed section 133(6) of the Act.
In that case, it was held that it was 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 u/s. 133(6) to issue notice, inter alia, requiring a 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 when no proceeding under the Act is pending.
In view of the aforesaid, the Supreme Court held that the powers u/s. 133(6) were in the nature of survey and a general enquiry to identify persons who are likely to have taxable income and whether they are in compliance with the provisions of the Act. It would not fall under the restricted domains of being ‘area specific’ or ‘case specific’. 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 assessing authority issuing notices requires. This clearly illustrated that the information of general nature could be called for and requirement of furnishing names and addresses of depositors who hold deposits above a particular sum is certainly permissible.
In the instant case, by the impugned notice the assessing authority sought for information in respect of its customers which had cash transactions or deposits of Rs. 1,00,000 or above for a period of three years, without reference to any proceeding or enquiry pending before any authority under the Act. The notice was issued only after obtaining approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin. The Supreme Court therefore held that the assessing authority has not erred in issuing the notice to the assessee-financial institution requiring it to furnish information regarding the account holders with cash transactions or deposits of more than Rs. 1,00,000.
