(Petitions for special leave to appeal against the judgment and order, dated December 7, 2001, of the Karnataka High Court in W.A. Nos. 1133, 1145, 1189 and 1144. of 2001).

Income‑tax‑‑

‑‑‑‑Power to call for information‑‑‑Information on points or matter's 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.

U.G. Upadhya v. Director of Income‑tax (2002) 255 ITR 502 affirmed.

K. Sarangan, Senior Advocate (Sanjay Kunur and N.N. Keshwani, Advocates with him) for Petitioners.

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 bank's 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 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 Joint 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 Joint Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals), will be useful for, or relevant to, any enquiry or proceeding under this Act:

Provided that the powers referred to in clause (6) may also be exercised by the Director General, the Chief Commissioner, the Director and the Commissioner:

Provided further that the power in respect of an inquiry, in a case where no proceeding is pending shall not be exercised by any Income‑tax Authority below the rank of Director or Commissioner without the prior approval of the Director or, as the case may be, the Commissioner."

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 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 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 July 7, 2000, indicates that it was at the instance of the Director of Income‑tax (Investigation) that the information was sought for.

We agree with the construction of the section as placed by the single Judge and the. Division Bench of the Kernataka High Court. These special leave petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.

M.B.A./1112/FCPetitions dismissed