We accept we have to answer, but the notice asks for depositor details going back years and we cannot do it in the time given. What relief is there?
Time, not exemption. A Division Bench applied the Supreme Court's construction of s.133(6) and upheld the notices calling for depositor names and addresses above a threshold, holding that no enquiry need have commenced before the power is used and that the approval of the Director or Commissioner is the only safeguard. It then granted the appellants two further months to comply.
Decided by the High Court (G. Sivarajan J and J.M. James J; judgment delivered by G. Sivarajan J) on 2003-02-25, reported as [2003] 263 ITR 161 (Ker); (2003) 182 CTR (Ker) 517; 2003 (2) KLT 32; O.P. No. 30610 of 2002 and connected cases. It bears on section 133(6), section 133 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Evidence & Burden of Proof and Assessment & Scrutiny matters.
It is the realistic outcome of resisting a broad s.133(6) demand. Courts have not read down the scope of these notices; they have extended time to answer them. That is what to ask for.
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 Commissioner of Income-tax (Central Information Branch) requiring the names and addresses of depositors whose deposits exceeded specified thresholds. They challenged the notices, contending that no proceeding was pending and that a demand for general information of this kind was not within the sub-section.
The appeals were dismissed and the notices were upheld. The Court applied the construction that it is not necessary that any inquiry should have commenced before s.133(6) can be invoked, and that the safeguard is that the approval of the Director or the Commissioner must first be obtained (para 11). Having upheld the notices, the Court granted the appellants two months more to comply with the directions in them (para 13).
The Bench took its construction of the amended sub-section from the Supreme Court, reproducing the passage holding that the power exists in order to collect information and may be used though nothing is pending, subject only to the approval of the Director or Commissioner. The words 'useful for, or relevant to, any enquiry or proceeding' were accordingly read as covering information of a general character - depositor names and addresses above a threshold - and not as confined to an identified assessee or an identified proceeding. The only concession the circumstances warranted was time.
We grant two months' time more to the appellants to comply with the directions in the impugned notices.
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 WhatsAppTime, not exemption. A Division Bench applied the Supreme Court's construction of s.133(6) and upheld the notices calling for depositor names and addresses above a threshold, holding that no enquiry need have commenced before the power is used and that the approval of the Director or Commissioner is the only safeguard. It then granted the appellants two further months to comply. This was decided by the High Court (G. Sivarajan J and J.M. James J; judgment delivered by G. Sivarajan J) and bears on section 133(6), section 133 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [2003] 263 ITR 161 (Ker); (2003) 182 CTR (Ker) 517; 2003 (2) KLT 32; O.P. No. 30610 of 2002 and connected cases. It is the realistic outcome of resisting a broad s.133(6) demand. Courts have not read down the scope of these notices; they have extended time to answer them. That is what to ask for. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Ask for time in writing, with a reason - volume, format, retrieval from branches - before the due date rather than after it.
Service co-operative banks in Kerala were served with notices under s.133(6) by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central Information Branch) requiring the names and addresses of depositors whose deposits exceeded specified thresholds. They challenged the notices, contending that no proceeding was pending and that a demand for general information of this kind was not within the sub-section. The matter was decided on 2003-02-25 by the High Court (G. Sivarajan J and J.M. James J; judgment delivered by G. Sivarajan J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The appeals were dismissed and the notices were upheld. The Court applied the construction that it is not necessary that any inquiry should have commenced before s.133(6) can be invoked, and that the safeguard is that the approval of the Director or the Commissioner must first be obtained (para 11). Having upheld the notices, the Court granted the appellants two months more to comply with the directions in them (para 13).
The Bench took its construction of the amended sub-section from the Supreme Court, reproducing the passage holding that the power exists in order to collect information and may be used though nothing is pending, subject only to the approval of the Director or Commissioner. The words 'useful for, or relevant to, any enquiry or proceeding' were accordingly read as covering information of a general character - depositor names and addresses above a threshold - and not as confined to an identified assessee or an identified proceeding. The only concession the circumstances warranted was time. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "We grant two months' time more to the appellants to comply with the directions in the impugned notices." The decision followed or applied Karnataka Bank Ltd v Secretary, Government of India (SC, decided 25 February 2002) - construction of s.133(6) adopted and reproduced.
It was decided by the High Court on 2003-02-25 and is reported as [2003] 263 ITR 161 (Ker); (2003) 182 CTR (Ker) 517; 2003 (2) KLT 32; O.P. No. 30610 of 2002 and connected cases. 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 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 notices were upheld. The Court applied the construction that it is not necessary that any inquiry should have commenced before s.133(6) can be invoked, and that the safeguard is that the approval of the Director or the Commissioner must first be obtained (para 11). Having upheld the notices, the Court granted the appellants two months more to comply with the directions in them (para 13). It arises in Evidence & Burden of Proof and Assessment & Scrutiny matters, on section 133(6), section 133 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by G. Sivarajan J and J.M. James J; judgment delivered by G. Sivarajan 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. Do not frame the request as a refusal; the Court here upheld the notices and only relieved on timing. Furnish what you have branch by branch as it is assembled, and record each tranche. Keep the extension correspondence; it is the best material for reasonable cause under s.273B if a penalty follows.
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, though the Kerala High Court has taken the same position in the later co-operative bank cases. The construction it adopted is the Supreme Court's own and has not been disturbed. 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.
The passage at para 11 which the Court states as its conclusion is word for word the Supreme Court's order of 25 February 2002 in Karnataka Bank Ltd; the Bench adopted it rather than reasoning afresh, and it should be cited as an application of that order. A companion judgment of the same date, Rechery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v CIT, is indexed at indiankanoon /doc/1533218/ and was not separately opened. An earlier retrieval of this document produced a line saying 'The Supreme Court's position was adopted' in a way that could be read as the Bench's own words; it is not, and nothing of that kind is quoted here. 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 notices were upheld. The Court applied the construction that it is not necessary that any inquiry should have commenced before s.133(6) can be invoked, and that the safeguard is that the approval of the Director or the Commissioner must first be obtained (para 11). Having upheld the notices, the Court granted the appellants two months more to comply with the directions in them (para 13).
TaxSphere, “Kechery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v CIT (CIB)”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/kechery-service-co-op-bank-v-cit-cib-133-6-time-to-comply/ (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.
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?
