Sivarajan, J.

The scope and ambit of Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") as amended by the Finance Act, 1995 arise for consideration in these appeals. All these writ appeals arise from a common judgment of the learned single judge in O.P.No.30610 of 2002 and connected cases. The petitioners in the writ petitions are the appellants. All the appellants are either co-operative societies or co-operative banks registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. Being aggrieved by a communication of the nature of Ext.P2 in O.P.No.30610 of 2002 received from the Incometax authority having jurisdiction over the petitioners calling for information such as a list of persons, who have made term/recurring deposits of Rs.50,000/- and above as an date along with their complete postal addresses, etc. they have filed the writ petitions. In the notice it is stated that the information is required in connection with the investigation of the appellants' case and the same is required under Section 133(6) of the Act. According to the appellants Section 133(6) does not clothe the respondents with any power for conducting a roving enquiry into the affairs of the appellants or regarding the deposits of money made by the customers of the appellants. According to them such power can be exercised only for gathering information in relation to any point or matter relevant to any proceedings under the Act. It is further stated that if the said sub-section is understood as giving a wide power it will affect the secrecy of their customers' account. It is their case that in order to invoke the provisions of Section 133(6) of the Act some proceedings under the Act must be pending against the person with respect to whom the details are called for but no such details are furnished in the notice. The learned single judge dismissed the writ petitions by holding that the notices issued to the appellants in the nature of Ext.P2 mentioned earlier are within the powers of the officers who issued the same and the co-operative societies and co-operative banks are bound to furnish the particulars called for in the notices, failing which the Department will be free to conduct search or take penal action permissible under the Act. Hence these appeals.

2. Sri.P.Balachandran, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in order to invoke the provisions of Section 133(6) of the Incometax Act there must be some proceedings under the Act pending before the authority with respect to whom the information is called for from the appellant banks. He further submitted that even though the notice under challenge purports to have been issued in connection with the investigation of the appellants' case really, it is intended to gather general information in respect of the deposits made by the customers and even in respect of investigation regarding the appellants such enquiry must be confined to any point or matter relevant to any proceeding under the Act. The counsel further submitted that if section 133(6) is understood to give a blanket power to the officers to conduct a roving enquiry in regard to the business transacted by the co-operative societies and co-operative banks such power must be held to be arbitrary and attracts and provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. The counsel also submitted that this power is being invoked only against co-operative societies and co-operative banks and not against banking companies and other financial institutions engaged in receiving deposit from customers. The counsel pointed out that the analogy drawn by the learned single judge based on the provisions of section 269SS was not justified since the proviso to the said section specifically excludes any loan or deposit taken or accepted by any banking company, post office or co-operative bank and as such there was no question of verification of the compliance with section 269SS of the Act. The counsel further submitted that by furnishing the details of