Can s.133(6) itself be challenged as an unreasonable invasion of privacy or an excessive delegation?
Not on the grounds argued here. The Court held the petitioners had not established any constitutional infirmity in the sub-section or in the 1995 amendment, and declined interference. It treated the prior-approval requirement in the proviso as the in-built mechanism that keeps the power within bounds.
Decided by the High Court (P.R. Ramachandra Menon J) on 2014-12-20, reported as WP(C) Nos. 10334, 14827, 14922, 14923, 20629, 21579, 25297, 23801, 23802, 23803 and 26114 of 2014. It bears on section 133(6), section 133 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Evidence & Burden of Proof and Assessment & Scrutiny matters.
It forecloses the constitutional line of attack and, in doing so, tells you where the real control sits - in the proviso. An argument about the breadth of the power is in substance an argument about whether the approval was taken.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Service co-operative banks in Kerala, served with notices under s.133(6), challenged the sub-section and the amendment made to it by the Finance Act 1995 as ultra vires the Constitution. Eleven connected writ petitions were heard together. The amendment in issue had inserted the words 'enquiry or' before 'proceeding' and had added the second proviso.
All the writ petitions were dismissed. The Court found that the petitioners had not succeeded in establishing any constitutional infirmity such as would hold the statute or the amendment ultra vires the Constitution, and accordingly declined interference (para 37). It recorded that all three requirements it had identified were satisfied in the case before it, so that the challenge could not be held good (para 34).
The Court set the amendment against the mischief it was aimed at, observing that the inadequacy of the provisions to meet the need of the hour had been felt by the lawmakers in 1995 (para 20). It set out the effect of the second proviso in terms: if no proceeding was pending, the power shall not be exercised by an officer below the rank of Director or Commissioner unless the prior approval of the Director or Commissioner was obtained (para 30). Because the widened power carries that in-built control, the Court treated the statutory scheme as sufficiently guarded against arbitrary exercise, and the constitutional challenge as unfounded.
the petitioners have not succeeded in establishing any constitutional infirmity
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 WhatsAppNot on the grounds argued here. The Court held the petitioners had not established any constitutional infirmity in the sub-section or in the 1995 amendment, and declined interference. It treated the prior-approval requirement in the proviso as the in-built mechanism that keeps the power within bounds. This was decided by the High Court (P.R. Ramachandra Menon J) and bears on section 133(6), section 133 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as WP(C) Nos. 10334, 14827, 14922, 14923, 20629, 21579, 25297, 23801, 23802, 23803 and 26114 of 2014. It forecloses the constitutional line of attack and, in doing so, tells you where the real control sits - in the proviso. An argument about the breadth of the power is in substance an argument about whether the approval was taken. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Do not spend a reply or a writ on the vires of s.133(6); that has been tried and refused.
Service co-operative banks in Kerala, served with notices under s.133(6), challenged the sub-section and the amendment made to it by the Finance Act 1995 as ultra vires the Constitution. Eleven connected writ petitions were heard together. The amendment in issue had inserted the words 'enquiry or' before 'proceeding' and had added the second proviso. The matter was decided on 2014-12-20 by the High Court (P.R. Ramachandra Menon J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. All the writ petitions were dismissed. The Court found that the petitioners had not succeeded in establishing any constitutional infirmity such as would hold the statute or the amendment ultra vires the Constitution, and accordingly declined interference (para 37). It recorded that all three requirements it had identified were satisfied in the case before it, so that the challenge could not be held good (para 34).
The Court set the amendment against the mischief it was aimed at, observing that the inadequacy of the provisions to meet the need of the hour had been felt by the lawmakers in 1995 (para 20). It set out the effect of the second proviso in terms: if no proceeding was pending, the power shall not be exercised by an officer below the rank of Director or Commissioner unless the prior approval of the Director or Commissioner was obtained (para 30). Because the widened power carries that in-built control, the Court treated the statutory scheme as sufficiently guarded against arbitrary exercise, and the constitutional challenge as unfounded. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "the petitioners have not succeeded in establishing any constitutional infirmity"
It was decided by the High Court on 2014-12-20 and is reported as WP(C) Nos. 10334, 14827, 14922, 14923, 20629, 21579, 25297, 23801, 23802, 23803 and 26114 of 2014. 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. All the writ petitions were dismissed. The Court found that the petitioners had not succeeded in establishing any constitutional infirmity such as would hold the statute or the amendment ultra vires the Constitution, and accordingly declined interference (para 37). It recorded that all three requirements it had identified were satisfied in the case before it, so that the challenge could not be held good (para 34). 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 P.R. Ramachandra Menon 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. Convert the objection into the proviso point: identify the rank of the issuing officer and ask whether approval was obtained. Where a whole class of societies or businesses is served, note that group challenges of this kind have been dismissed together. Comply under protest while the point is taken; none of these petitioners obtained a stay of the obligation to furnish.
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, and no appeal from it was traced. The same construction of the proviso was applied by the Kerala High Court in later co-operative bank cases, most recently Chennithala Thripperumthura Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v ITO (TDS) on 12 March 2025, but without citing this judgment on the text read. 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 date is taken from the document, which is headed 'SATURDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936', and the Judge from the signature line 'P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE'. The 'three requirements' referred to at para 34 are the Court's own formulation for testing the challenge and are not set out in the passages retrieved; read para 34 in context before relying on it. A second copy of this judgment is indexed at indiankanoon /doc/163324199/. 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.
All the writ petitions were dismissed. The Court found that the petitioners had not succeeded in establishing any constitutional infirmity such as would hold the statute or the amendment ultra vires the Constitution, and accordingly declined interference (para 37). It recorded that all three requirements it had identified were satisfied in the case before it, so that the challenge could not be held good (para 34).
TaxSphere, “Pattambi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v Union of India”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/pattambi-service-co-op-bank-v-uoi-133-6-constitutional-validity/ (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?
