The department has asked my bank for the names and addresses of every customer whose cash transactions or deposits crossed one lakh over the last three years. There is no assessment or enquiry pending against anybody. Can a notice under section 133(6) be issued at large like this?
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the powers under section 133(6) are 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, and that they do not fall under the restricted domains of being area specific or case specific. The section does not refer to an enquiry about any particular person or assessee but to information in relation to such points or matters as the authority issuing the notice requires, so information of a general nature can be called for and the names and addresses of depositors holding deposits above a particular sum are certainly permissible. On the facts, the notice had been issued after obtaining the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, and the appeal was dismissed.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India; the coram is not established - the judgment's own text was not reachable and the decisions that reproduce it do not name the judges) on 2013-08-27, reported as [2014] 360 ITR 243 (SC); Civil Appeal No. 7460 of 2013, arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 3976 of 2010. It bears on section 133, section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Evidence & Burden of Proof, Assessment & Scrutiny and Co-operative Societies matters.
Section 133(6) is the department's cheapest instrument and the one most often met by a taxpayer who is not under assessment at all - a bank, a society, a registrar, a builder's customer list. The instinctive reply is that no proceeding is pending, so there is nothing for the information to relate to. This judgment closes that reply. It holds the power to be in the nature of survey and a general enquiry aimed at identifying persons likely to have taxable income, and holds in terms that it is not confined to being area specific or case specific, so a notice asking for every depositor above a stated figure over three years stands. That matters far beyond co-operative banks: it is the authority on which annual information trawls, deposit lists and third-party data calls rest. Its second use is defensive, and it is the more valuable one. The Court took care to record that the notice before it had issued only after the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin. Where no proceeding is pending, that approval is the statutory condition on the power, and it is the ground that this judgment leaves open rather than shuts. A reply that asks for the approval is a better reply than one that disputes the width of the questions.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The appellant was a co-operative bank. The assessing authority issued it a notice under section 133(6) seeking information in respect of its customers who had cash transactions or deposits of Rs.1,00,000 or above over a period of three years. The notice was not referable to any proceeding or enquiry pending before any authority under the Act. It had been issued after obtaining the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin. The bank challenged the notice before the High Court of Kerala. A Division Bench held that the notice could validly be issued by the assessing authority for such an enquiry. The bank appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave.
The appeal was dismissed. In the Court's words: "In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the powers under section 133(6) are 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 illustrates that the information of general nature can be called for and 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 have 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. Admittedly, in the present case, notice was issued only after obtaining approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the assessing authority has not erred in issuing the notice to the assessee-financial institution requiring it to furnish information regarding the account holder with cash transactions or deposits of more than Rs.1,00,000. Therefore, we hold that the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in its conclusion that for such enquiry under section 133(6) the notice could be validly issued by the assessing authority. In view of the above, the appeal requires to be dismissed and accordingly, stands dismissed."
The reasoning that is available in the Court's own words runs on the language of the provision. Section 133(6) speaks of information in relation to 'such points or matters' as the authority requires; it does not speak of an enquiry into a named person. From that the Court drew two conclusions. The first is characterisation: the power is in the nature of survey and of a general enquiry, directed at identifying persons who are likely to have taxable income and at checking whether they are complying with the Act. The second follows from it: because the power is general, it cannot be confined to what the Court called the restricted domains of being area specific or case specific, and so information of a general nature may be called for, including the names and addresses of depositors holding deposits above a stated figure. Having placed the power there, the Court applied it to the notice before it, which asked for customers with cash transactions or deposits of Rs.1,00,000 or above over three years and was unconnected with any pending proceeding, and held the assessing authority had not erred in issuing it. The Court recorded, as a fact admitted before it, that the notice had gone out only after the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin had been obtained, and that recital sits in the same passage as the conclusion. It then affirmed the Division Bench of the High Court and dismissed the appeal.
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 illustrates that the information of general nature can be called for and names and addresses of depositors who hold deposits above a particular sum is certainly permissible.
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. The Supreme Court held that the powers under section 133(6) are 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, and that they do not fall under the restricted domains of being area specific or case specific. The section does not refer to an enquiry about any particular person or assessee but to information in relation to such points or matters as the authority issuing the notice requires, so information of a general nature can be called for and the names and addresses of depositors holding deposits above a particular sum are certainly permissible. On the facts, the notice had been issued after obtaining the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, and the appeal was dismissed. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India; the coram is not established - the judgment's own text was not reachable and the decisions that reproduce it do not name the judges) and bears on section 133, section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [2014] 360 ITR 243 (SC); Civil Appeal No. 7460 of 2013, arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 3976 of 2010. Section 133(6) is the department's cheapest instrument and the one most often met by a taxpayer who is not under assessment at all - a bank, a society, a registrar, a builder's customer list. The instinctive reply is that no proceeding is pending, so there is nothing for the information to relate to. This judgment closes that reply. It holds the power to be in the nature of survey and a general enquiry aimed at identifying persons likely to have taxable income, and holds in terms that it is not confined to being area specific or case specific, so a notice asking for every depositor above a stated figure over three years stands. That matters far beyond co-operative banks: it is the authority on which annual information trawls, deposit lists and third-party data calls rest. Its second use is defensive, and it is the more valuable one. The Court took care to record that the notice before it had issued only after the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin. Where no proceeding is pending, that approval is the statutory condition on the power, and it is the ground that this judgment leaves open rather than shuts. A reply that asks for the approval is a better reply than one that disputes the width of the questions. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Check the approval first, not the width of the notice. Where no proceeding is pending, the proviso to section 133 requires prior approval of the Director or the Commissioner before the power in clause (6) is exercised by a lower authority. The Supreme Court expressly recorded that in this case the notice had been issued only after obtaining approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin. Ask for that approval; an absent or defective approval is the point that survives this judgment.
The appellant was a co-operative bank. The assessing authority issued it a notice under section 133(6) seeking information in respect of its customers who had cash transactions or deposits of Rs.1,00,000 or above over a period of three years. The notice was not referable to any proceeding or enquiry pending before any authority under the Act. It had been issued after obtaining the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin. The bank challenged the notice before the High Court of Kerala. A Division Bench held that the notice could validly be issued by the assessing authority for such an enquiry. The bank appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The matter was decided on 2013-08-27 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India; the coram is not established - the judgment's own text was not reachable and the decisions that reproduce it do not name the judges). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The appeal was dismissed. In the Court's words: "In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the powers under section 133(6) are 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 illustrates that the information of general nature can be called for and 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 have 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. Admittedly, in the present case, notice was issued only after obtaining approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the assessing authority has not erred in issuing the notice to the assessee-financial institution requiring it to furnish information regarding the account holder with cash transactions or deposits of more than Rs.1,00,000. Therefore, we hold that the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in its conclusion that for such enquiry under section 133(6) the notice could be validly issued by the assessing authority. In view of the above, the appeal requires to be dismissed and accordingly, stands dismissed."
The reasoning that is available in the Court's own words runs on the language of the provision. Section 133(6) speaks of information in relation to 'such points or matters' as the authority requires; it does not speak of an enquiry into a named person. From that the Court drew two conclusions. The first is characterisation: the power is in the nature of survey and of a general enquiry, directed at identifying persons who are likely to have taxable income and at checking whether they are complying with the Act. The second follows from it: because the power is general, it cannot be confined to what the Court called the restricted domains of being area specific or case specific, and so information of a general nature may be called for, including the names and addresses of depositors holding deposits above a stated figure. Having placed the power there, the Court applied it to the notice before it, which asked for customers with cash transactions or deposits of Rs.1,00,000 or above over three years and was unconnected with any pending proceeding, and held the assessing authority had not erred in issuing it. The Court recorded, as a fact admitted before it, that the notice had gone out only after the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin had been obtained, and that recital sits in the same passage as the conclusion. It then affirmed the Division Bench of the High Court and dismissed the appeal. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "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 illustrates that the information of general nature can be called for and names and addresses of depositors who hold deposits above a particular sum is certainly permissible."
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 2013-08-27 and is reported as [2014] 360 ITR 243 (SC); Civil Appeal No. 7460 of 2013, arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 3976 of 2010. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 133, section 133(6), 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 appeal was dismissed. In the Court's words: "In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the powers under section 133(6) are 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 illustrates that the information of general nature can be called for and 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 have 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. Admittedly, in the present case, notice was issued only after obtaining approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the assessing authority has not erred in issuing the notice to the assessee-financial institution requiring it to furnish information regarding the account holder with cash transactions or deposits of more than Rs.1,00,000. Therefore, we hold that the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in its conclusion that for such enquiry under section 133(6) the notice could be validly issued by the assessing authority. In view of the above, the appeal requires to be dismissed and accordingly, stands dismissed." It arises in Evidence & Burden of Proof, Assessment & Scrutiny and Co-operative Societies matters, on section 133, section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court of India; the coram is not established - the judgment's own text was not reachable and the decisions that reproduce it do not name the judges. 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. Do not build the reply on the absence of a pending proceeding. That is the argument the Court answered. The notice in this case sought information about customers with cash transactions or deposits of Rs.1,00,000 or above for three years without reference to any proceeding or enquiry pending before any authority under the Act, and it was upheld. Check who signed it. The Court's reasoning proceeds on the notice having been issued by the assessing authority. A notice signed by an officer outside the authorities named in section 133 is a different objection and this judgment does not meet it. Answer within the time given, or ask for more in writing before it expires. The reported consequence of not answering is a penalty, and the reported defence is reasonable cause; the sequence of letters you write before the due date is what that defence is built from. If the information is genuinely not held in the form asked for, say so specifically, state what you do hold and offer that. A blanket refusal reads as defiance; an itemised account of what your system can and cannot produce reads as cooperation. Keep customer confidentiality arguments in proportion. This judgment treats the power as a general enquiry into likely taxable income, and a co-operative bank is within it. Where a claim of privilege or a statutory bar is genuinely available, plead it precisely rather than generally.
The judgment itself could not be reached, so no check was possible. The decision has not been doubted and is applied as settled. It is the Supreme Court authority behind a long line of orders in Kerala on notices issued to co-operative banks and societies: the Cochin Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set out paragraphs 19 to 22 of it in Kalpakancherry Service Co-operative Bank on 23 August 2017, in Kakkoor Service Co-operative Bank on the same day, in Palakuzha Service Co-operative Bank on 8 November 2017, in Mekkadampu Service Co-operative Bank, Arthunkal and Vettackal on 8 July 2019 and in Ranny Service Co-operative Bank on 4 November 2019; the Panaji Bench did the same in West Chalakudy Service Co-operative Bank on 3 October 2017. The Kerala High Court applied it in Enanalloor Service Co-operative Bank and thirty-three connected appeals decided on 19 February 2020 by C.K. Abdul Rehim and Amit Rawal JJ, dismissing all of them. Some thirty court documents reproduce the same four paragraphs in the same words. The status recorded here is about sourcing and not about authority. The judgment's own text could not be read on the Supreme Court's judgment store or on any public index of its judgments, and the record has therefore been built from the paragraphs as reproduced, identically, by courts and Tribunal benches that had the judgment before them. Every sentence quoted on this page, and the order dismissing the appeal, appears in that form in more than one independently published decision. What could not be established, and is therefore not stated, is the coram, the wording of the opening paragraphs, and the citation of the Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court that was under appeal. The Income-tax Act, 1961 was repealed on 1 April 2026 by section 536(1) of the Income-tax Act, 2025, and section 536(2)(c) continues it for proceedings in respect of any tax year beginning before that date. The successor to section 133(6) in the 2025 Act has not been established on the department's own page for that section and is therefore not given 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.
This record needs a word about where its text comes from, because that governs how far it should be pressed. The judgment itself could not be read. It is not on the Supreme Court's own judgment store under any reachable reference and it is not carried by the public indexes of Indian judgments, which return only later decisions that cite it. What is set out on this page is the closing passage of the judgment, paragraphs 19 to 22, as courts and Tribunal benches that had the judgment in front of them have reproduced it. That reproduction is unusually good evidence: the same four paragraphs, in the same words, appear in orders of the Cochin Bench of 2017 and 2019 and of the Panaji Bench of 2017, and the Kerala High Court applied the same holding in 2020. The quotations on this page and the order dismissing the appeal each sit in more than one of those decisions. What is missing is everything before paragraph 19 - the facts as the Court stated them, the arguments, the coram - and none of it has been supplied by inference. The practical caution is about how the case is used. It is quoted, almost always, for the single line that the power is not area specific or case specific, and that line is real. What tends to be dropped is the sentence two paragraphs later in which the Court records that the notice had issued only after obtaining the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin. The Court did not treat that as decorative; it recited it immediately before concluding that the assessing authority had not erred. Where no proceeding is pending, the approval is the condition the statute imposes on a power the Court has just described as a general trawl, and it is the only real check left standing. A reply to a wide section 133(6) notice that asks to see the approval is therefore doing the thing this judgment permits, not resisting it. One further point, since the line of decisions that quotes this case is largely a line of penalty appeals. The Supreme Court decided the validity of the notice. It said nothing about the consequence of not answering one, and a penalty is not a foregone conclusion merely because the notice was good. The correspondence written before the date the information fell due is what decides that second question, and it is a different file from the one this judgment closes. The Court does not set out the proviso to section 133 or say what follows if the approval it requires is missing; it records only that approval had in fact been obtained. It does not say whether a notice may travel back over any number of years, the three-year span before it not having been challenged separately. It does not deal with the consequences of non-compliance, so nothing in it decides a penalty appeal or what amounts to reasonable cause. It does not address confidentiality or any claim of privilege, nor the position of a person who holds the information as a custodian for someone else. It does not decide who within the department may issue such a notice beyond affirming that the assessing authority could. And it says nothing about how the information gathered may afterwards be used against the depositors themselves. 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 appeal was dismissed. In the Court's words: "In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the powers under section 133(6) are 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 illustrates that the information of general nature can be called for and 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 have 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. Admittedly, in the present case, notice was issued only after obtaining approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the assessing authority has not erred in issuing the notice to the assessee-financial institution requiring it to furnish information regarding the account holder with cash transactions or deposits of more than Rs.1,00,000. Therefore, we hold that the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in its conclusion that for such enquiry under section 133(6) the notice could be validly issued by the assessing authority. In view of the above, the appeal requires to be dismissed and accordingly, stands dismissed."
TaxSphere, “Kathiroor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v CIT (CIB)”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/kathiroor-service-co-operative-bank-v-cit-cib-section-133-6-general-enquiry/ (validity last checked 2026-09-23)
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.
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?
Our counsel wants to cite a Bombay case that says s.133(6) cannot be used for a fishing enquiry. Is it still good?
The letter from the Investigation wing cites a provision that does not exist. Is it void for that?
