The notice came from an Income-tax Officer (Intelligence), not from my Assessing Officer. Does he have the power?
Yes. A Division Bench held that the expression 'income-tax authorities' is of wide amplitude and also includes the Assessing Officer, that the s.133(6) procedure is akin to a survey, and that the powers are in the nature of a survey and a general enquiry to identify persons who are likely to have taxable income. On who may issue, the Bench adopted the Kerala High Court's earlier judgment in Kodur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, which it reproduced within its reasons and which held that by virtue of the notification of 19 August 2011 and the documents under it the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) is the authorised person. The appeals were dismissed and the penalties stood.
Decided by the High Court (C.K. Abdul Rehim J and Amit Rawal J) on 2020-02-19, reported as ITA No. 73 of 2018 with ITA Nos. 265, 270 to 276, 279, 280, 287, 289 to 300, 302 to 309, 311 and 312 of 2019. It bears on section 133(6), section 272A(2)(c), section 133 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Evidence & Burden of Proof and Penalty matters.
'Wrong officer' is the second-most common objection after 'nothing is pending'. This is the High Court answer, and it is the decision the Kerala Benches have applied since.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Service co-operative banks in Kerala were served with notices under s.133(6) by the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence), did not furnish the information, and were penalised. Their appeals having failed before the Tribunal, they appealed to the High Court contending that the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) was not an authority competent to issue a notice under s.133(6).
The appeals were dismissed and the orders under challenge were upheld, with no order as to costs. The Bench's own sentences are that the expression 'income-tax authorities' is of a wide amplitude and also includes the Assessing Officer, that the procedure under s.133(6) is akin to a survey, and that the powers are in the nature of a survey and a general enquiry to identify persons who are likely to have taxable income. The proposition that by virtue of the notification of 19 August 2011 and the documents under it the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) is the authorised person who could issue the notice is not this Bench's own sentence: it is reproduced from the Kerala High Court's earlier judgment in Kodur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, extracted within item (ii) of the Bench's reasons and adopted.
The Court heard both sides, perused the records and held that there was no force in the submissions, giving its reasons as sub-numbered items after extracting ss.120 and 133 (paras 11 and 12). It approached the question as one of authorisation rather than of nomenclature. On the authorisation itself it did not reason afresh: within item (ii) it reproduced the earlier judgment in Kodur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, which held that the notification of 19 August 2011 empowered Directors to delegate powers under the Act and that, by virtue of those documents, the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) is the authorised person who could issue the notice. What the Bench added in its own words is the width of the expression 'income-tax authorities', which it held also includes the Assessing Officer, and the character of the power - akin to a survey, and in the nature of a survey and a general enquiry to identify persons who are likely to have taxable income, as construed by the Supreme Court in Kathiroor. The officer being authorised and the enquiry being of that character, the appeals raised no substantial question of law and were dismissed.
in the nature of survey and a general enquiry to identify persons who are likely to have taxable income
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 WhatsAppYes. A Division Bench held that the expression 'income-tax authorities' is of wide amplitude and also includes the Assessing Officer, that the s.133(6) procedure is akin to a survey, and that the powers are in the nature of a survey and a general enquiry to identify persons who are likely to have taxable income. On who may issue, the Bench adopted the Kerala High Court's earlier judgment in Kodur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, which it reproduced within its reasons and which held that by virtue of the notification of 19 August 2011 and the documents under it the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) is the authorised person. The appeals were dismissed and the penalties stood. This was decided by the High Court (C.K. Abdul Rehim J and Amit Rawal J) and bears on section 133(6), section 272A(2)(c), section 133 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 73 of 2018 with ITA Nos. 265, 270 to 276, 279, 280, 287, 289 to 300, 302 to 309, 311 and 312 of 2019. 'Wrong officer' is the second-most common objection after 'nothing is pending'. This is the High Court answer, and it is the decision the Kerala Benches have applied since. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Before disputing the officer's authority, ask for the notification and the order of authorisation under which he acts.
Service co-operative banks in Kerala were served with notices under s.133(6) by the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence), did not furnish the information, and were penalised. Their appeals having failed before the Tribunal, they appealed to the High Court contending that the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) was not an authority competent to issue a notice under s.133(6). The matter was decided on 2020-02-19 by the High Court (C.K. Abdul Rehim J and Amit Rawal J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The appeals were dismissed and the orders under challenge were upheld, with no order as to costs. The Bench's own sentences are that the expression 'income-tax authorities' is of a wide amplitude and also includes the Assessing Officer, that the procedure under s.133(6) is akin to a survey, and that the powers are in the nature of a survey and a general enquiry to identify persons who are likely to have taxable income. The proposition that by virtue of the notification of 19 August 2011 and the documents under it the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) is the authorised person who could issue the notice is not this Bench's own sentence: it is reproduced from the Kerala High Court's earlier judgment in Kodur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, extracted within item (ii) of the Bench's reasons and adopted.
The Court heard both sides, perused the records and held that there was no force in the submissions, giving its reasons as sub-numbered items after extracting ss.120 and 133 (paras 11 and 12). It approached the question as one of authorisation rather than of nomenclature. On the authorisation itself it did not reason afresh: within item (ii) it reproduced the earlier judgment in Kodur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, which held that the notification of 19 August 2011 empowered Directors to delegate powers under the Act and that, by virtue of those documents, the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) is the authorised person who could issue the notice. What the Bench added in its own words is the width of the expression 'income-tax authorities', which it held also includes the Assessing Officer, and the character of the power - akin to a survey, and in the nature of a survey and a general enquiry to identify persons who are likely to have taxable income, as construed by the Supreme Court in Kathiroor. The officer being authorised and the enquiry being of that character, the appeals raised no substantial question of law and were dismissed. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "in the nature of survey and a general enquiry to identify persons who are likely to have taxable income" The decision followed or applied Kathiroor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v CIT, (2014) 360 ITR 243 (SC) - relied on for the construction of s.133(6); Kodur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v Director of Income Tax (Intelligence), (2014) 367 ITR 22 (Ker) - reproduced within the Bench's reasons and adopted for the proposition that the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) is the authorised person.
It was decided by the High Court on 2020-02-19 and is reported as ITA No. 73 of 2018 with ITA Nos. 265, 270 to 276, 279, 280, 287, 289 to 300, 302 to 309, 311 and 312 of 2019. 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 272A(2)(c), 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. The appeals were dismissed and the orders under challenge were upheld, with no order as to costs. The Bench's own sentences are that the expression 'income-tax authorities' is of a wide amplitude and also includes the Assessing Officer, that the procedure under s.133(6) is akin to a survey, and that the powers are in the nature of a survey and a general enquiry to identify persons who are likely to have taxable income. The proposition that by virtue of the notification of 19 August 2011 and the documents under it the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) is the authorised person who could issue the notice is not this Bench's own sentence: it is reproduced from the Kerala High Court's earlier judgment in Kodur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, extracted within item (ii) of the Bench's reasons and adopted. It arises in Evidence & Burden of Proof and Penalty matters, on section 133(6), section 272A(2)(c), section 133 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by C.K. Abdul Rehim J and Amit Rawal 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. If the notice is from an Intelligence or Investigation wing officer, that alone is not an answer - the authorisation is what matters. Note that this line of authority is about who may issue, not about whether approval under the proviso was taken; those are separate points. Answer while the point is taken, because the penalty for not answering runs regardless.
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. The Kerala High Court took the same position on the officer's competence in Chennithala Thripperumthura Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v ITO (TDS), decided 12 March 2025, without citing this judgment on the text read. It is reported as (2020) 426 ITR 180 (Ker) in secondary sources; that citation is not printed on the document opened and is not adopted here. 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.
These were appeals under s.260A from the Tribunal, not writ petitions, notwithstanding the way the source indexes them. The Bench cites Kathiroor as (2014) 360 ITR 243 (SC) while other decisions give (2013) 360 ITR 243; the Supreme Court decision is of 2013 and the volume reference is the same. Neither Kathiroor nor Kodur could be opened in a verifiable full text, and both are recorded here only as authorities this Bench relied on. The penalty question is dealt with only as a consequence of the jurisdiction finding; this is not an authority on the quantum of penalty or on reasonable cause. A check against the document corrected two things: the authorised-person sentence in the held was this Bench's adoption of an extract from Kodur rather than its own finding, and the key quotation was not verbatim - the document reads 'a general enquiry to identify persons who are likely to have taxable income', and the words 'a' and 'who are' had been dropped. 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.
The appeals were dismissed and the orders under challenge were upheld, with no order as to costs. The Bench's own sentences are that the expression 'income-tax authorities' is of a wide amplitude and also includes the Assessing Officer, that the procedure under s.133(6) is akin to a survey, and that the powers are in the nature of a survey and a general enquiry to identify persons who are likely to have taxable income. The proposition that by virtue of the notification of 19 August 2011 and the documents under it the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) is the authorised person who could issue the notice is not this Bench's own sentence: it is reproduced from the Kerala High Court's earlier judgment in Kodur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, extracted within item (ii) of the Bench's reasons and adopted.
TaxSphere, “Enanalloor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v ITO (I & CI)”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/enanalloor-service-co-op-bank-v-ito-intelligence-133-6-who-may-issue/ (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.
We ignored the s.133(6) notices because we thought the officer had no business asking. What does that cost?
The s.133(6) notices went unanswered and the s.272A(2)(c) penalties have been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Is there anything left to run before the Tribunal?
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?
