The letter from the Investigation wing cites a provision that does not exist. Is it void for that?
No. The Court held that a notice issued under a wrongly cited or non-existent provision is not for that reason invalid if the authority had the power under an appropriate provision. A letter purporting to be under 'section 133(1A)' was sustained as referable to s.133(6) read with s.135. The petitions were dismissed, and also as barred by laches after a two-year delay.
Decided by the High Court (Ferdino Inacio Rebello CJ and Prakash Krishna J) on 2011-05-02, reported as Writ Tax No. 378 of 2004 and Writ Tax No. 403 of 2004. It bears on section 133(6), section 135, section 133 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Evidence & Burden of Proof and Search, Survey & Block Assessment matters.
It closes off the most tempting technical objection to an Investigation wing letter. It also confirms that the Director of Income-tax (Investigation) exercises the s.133(6) power through s.135, which is where the wing's authority comes from.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The petitioners, medical practitioners, were served with a letter dated 4 April 2002 from the Investigation Directorate calling for information. The letter cited 'section 133(1A)' of the Act, a provision which does not exist. The petitioners challenged the notice on that ground and on the ground that the enquiry was impermissible. The writ petitions were filed about two years after the letter.
Both writ petitions were dismissed, on the merits and as barred by laches. The Court held that the information sought could be justified with reference to s.133(6) read with s.135, and that the omission to refer to the provision which is the source of the power, or the mentioning of a wrong provision, will not by itself render an order invalid or illegal if the authority had the power under an appropriate provision of law. The notice was not quashed. The petitioners were directed to appear before the assessing authority within the week specified, and the period of the stay was excluded from the computation of limitation for the assessment.
The Court applied the general principle that the validity of an exercise of statutory power depends on the existence of the power and not on its correct recital. It then located the power: s.133(6) permits a notice requiring any person to furnish information on such points or matters as may be useful or relevant, even where no proceeding is pending, provided the Director or Commissioner grants prior approval; and s.135 confers on the Director of Income-tax the powers of an Assessing Officer for the purposes of making enquiries. Read together these supported the letter. The delay of about two years in coming to court was a separate and sufficient reason to refuse relief.
the information sought for through the said letter can be justified with reference to section 133(6) read with section 135 of the Act
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Court held that a notice issued under a wrongly cited or non-existent provision is not for that reason invalid if the authority had the power under an appropriate provision. A letter purporting to be under 'section 133(1A)' was sustained as referable to s.133(6) read with s.135. The petitions were dismissed, and also as barred by laches after a two-year delay. This was decided by the High Court (Ferdino Inacio Rebello CJ and Prakash Krishna J) and bears on section 133(6), section 135, section 133 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Writ Tax No. 378 of 2004 and Writ Tax No. 403 of 2004. It closes off the most tempting technical objection to an Investigation wing letter. It also confirms that the Director of Income-tax (Investigation) exercises the s.133(6) power through s.135, which is where the wing's authority comes from. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Do not build a challenge on the citation of the wrong sub-section; identify instead whether any provision in fact confers the power.
The petitioners, medical practitioners, were served with a letter dated 4 April 2002 from the Investigation Directorate calling for information. The letter cited 'section 133(1A)' of the Act, a provision which does not exist. The petitioners challenged the notice on that ground and on the ground that the enquiry was impermissible. The writ petitions were filed about two years after the letter. The matter was decided on 2011-05-02 by the High Court (Ferdino Inacio Rebello CJ and Prakash Krishna J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. Both writ petitions were dismissed, on the merits and as barred by laches. The Court held that the information sought could be justified with reference to s.133(6) read with s.135, and that the omission to refer to the provision which is the source of the power, or the mentioning of a wrong provision, will not by itself render an order invalid or illegal if the authority had the power under an appropriate provision of law. The notice was not quashed. The petitioners were directed to appear before the assessing authority within the week specified, and the period of the stay was excluded from the computation of limitation for the assessment.
The Court applied the general principle that the validity of an exercise of statutory power depends on the existence of the power and not on its correct recital. It then located the power: s.133(6) permits a notice requiring any person to furnish information on such points or matters as may be useful or relevant, even where no proceeding is pending, provided the Director or Commissioner grants prior approval; and s.135 confers on the Director of Income-tax the powers of an Assessing Officer for the purposes of making enquiries. Read together these supported the letter. The delay of about two years in coming to court was a separate and sufficient reason to refuse relief. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "the information sought for through the said letter can be justified with reference to section 133(6) read with section 135 of the Act"
It was decided by the High Court on 2011-05-02 and is reported as Writ Tax No. 378 of 2004 and Writ Tax No. 403 of 2004. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 133(6), section 135, section 133, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. Both writ petitions were dismissed, on the merits and as barred by laches. The Court held that the information sought could be justified with reference to s.133(6) read with s.135, and that the omission to refer to the provision which is the source of the power, or the mentioning of a wrong provision, will not by itself render an order invalid or illegal if the authority had the power under an appropriate provision of law. The notice was not quashed. The petitioners were directed to appear before the assessing authority within the week specified, and the period of the stay was excluded from the computation of limitation for the assessment. It arises in Evidence & Burden of Proof and Search, Survey & Block Assessment matters, on section 133(6), section 135, section 133 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Ferdino Inacio Rebello CJ and Prakash Krishna J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Where the letter comes from the Investigation wing, look to s.135 for the source of its authority and to the proviso for the approval. Move promptly if you are going to move at all; the delay here was fatal independently of the merits. Answer in the meantime, because the challenge does not suspend the obligation.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. No decision applying, affirming, doubting or overruling this judgment was located. It is consistent with the Supreme Court's construction of s.133(6) in Karnataka Bank Ltd, where the notice in issue had likewise been issued at the instance of the Director of Income-tax (Investigation). No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
No reporter citation is printed on the document opened. The judgment sustains the notice on the footing that the approval required by the second proviso was available; the document as read does not set out any finding that approval had in fact been obtained in this case, and the point should be checked against the full record before the decision is used as authority that approval may be presumed. The dismissal on laches is an independent ground, which limits how far the merits reasoning can be pressed. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Both writ petitions were dismissed, on the merits and as barred by laches. The Court held that the information sought could be justified with reference to s.133(6) read with s.135, and that the omission to refer to the provision which is the source of the power, or the mentioning of a wrong provision, will not by itself render an order invalid or illegal if the authority had the power under an appropriate provision of law. The notice was not quashed. The petitioners were directed to appear before the assessing authority within the week specified, and the period of the stay was excluded from the computation of limitation for the assessment.
TaxSphere, “Dr. V.S. Chauhan v Director of Income Tax (Investigation)”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/dr-vs-chauhan-v-dit-investigation-133-6-wrong-section-quoted/ (validity last checked 2026-09-17)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
Which provisions of the Income-tax Act apply to the Black Money Act, and can the officer borrow one that is not on the list?
The search on me was illegal. Can I stop the department using what it took?
The bank has a s.133(6) notice asking for customer loan-repayment details and there is no assessment pending on anyone. Can the officer do that?
We are exempt from deducting tax on these deposits. Does that also mean we need not give the information?
