Judgment

B. N. KIRPAL, J.

( 1 ) IT is contended by the learned senior Counsel for the petitioner that the High Court has wrongly construed the provisions of Section 133 (6) of the Income-tax Act and the notice dated 7th July, 2000 under that sub-section could not have been issued asking for information regarding repayment of loans for the periods referred to in the said notice. Learned senior Counsel submits that there was no inquiry which was pending and that the omnibus notice requiring the furnishing of information in respect of the banks customers is not envisaged by the said sub-section.

( 2 ) WE are unable to agree with the learned Counsel, Section 133 (6), after introduction of the second proviso, reads as follows :"s. 133. The Assessing Officer, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Joint Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) may, for the purposes of this Act (6) require any person, including a banking company or any officer thereof, to furnish information in relation to such points or matters, or to furnish statements of accounts and affairs verified in the manner specified by the Assessing Officer, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Joint commissioner or the Commi