TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 503
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is petition and with consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the same was taken up for hearing as learned advocates for the respective parties have concluded their submissions and pleadings as recorded in order dated 29th January, 2024. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs. "(a) Declare the search action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act carried out by the Respondents at the residential premises as well as the office premises of the Petitioner as bad, arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal, contrary to law and without jurisdiction. (b) Direct the respondents to return the documents taken from the office of the petitioner without keeping any copy with the respondents and their Income Tax department, also direct the respondents to return all the digital data taken from the devices i.e. ipad(s), Laptop(s), Mobile(s), Desktop(s), Computer(s) and from any other Gadget(s) from petitioner's residence and office without keeping any copy thereof. (c) Direct the respondents to destroy all the copies if the respondent have/kept from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ued from 03rd November, 2023 and ended on 06th November, 2023. According to the petitioner, during these four days, the petitioner, his wife, son and daughter were not allowed to move freely until the search ended on 06th November, 2023 by the respondent officers. The petitioner has also alleged that daughter of the petitioner was not allowed to attend college during these four days and petitioner was not allowed to attend the court proceedings on 06th November, 2023. 3.6 It is the case of the petitioner that on 03rd November, 2023 at 06.30 a.m., one Mr. Amit Kumar who is later on joined as respondent No.11 by the order of the Court and whose name is not mentioned in the Panchnama and who is later on identified as a notice server along with two police officers having rifles, went to the residence of Ms. Hima Patel, a lady advocate working with the petitioner as a freelancer, to serve the summons under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). According to the petitioner, said officer forcefully took Ms. Hima Patel to the office premises of the petitioner without presence of any female officer. At the residential premises of Ms. Hima Patel, said officer asked....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ough video conference with learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.N. Soparkar with learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati with learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jal Soli Unwalla assisted by learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Varun K. Patel for the respective respondents. 2. Considering averments made in the petition and submissions made by learned advocates for the petitioner and respondents, the petitioner is directed to join the following Officers as party respondent Nos.5 to 11 in their personal capacity so as to show cause as to why appropriate order should not be passed for exceeding their powers conferred under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 : (5) Ravjit Singh Arneja, DGIT (Investigation), Ahmedabad. (6) Shri Rakesh Ranjan, ITO; (7) Shri Dhrumil Bhatt, Inspector; (8) Shri Neeraj Kumar Jogi, Inspector; (9) Shri Vivek Kumar, Office Superintendent; (10) Shri Ranjeet Chaudhary, Multi Tasking Staff; (11) Amit Kumar, Inspector; Notice to be served at Aaykar Bhavan, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. 3. Issue Notice to the newly joined respondent Nos.5 to 11, returnabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged documents as per the doctrine of attorney-client privilege and the respondent authorities could not have copied by forensic imaging of the entire hard disk containing all the data lying in the office of the petitioner including various documents drafted by the petitioner and other legal papers which are available in the computers of the office of the petitioner in violation of the doctrine of attorney-client privilege as all such documents are required to be protected from being misused by the respondent authorities under the guise of search under Section 132(1) of the Act,1961. 6.4 It was contended by learned senior advocates for the petitioner that the action of search and seizure carried out by the respondent authority from 03rd November, 2023 to 06th November, 2023 has violated constitutional provision of privacy as well as the doctrine of attorney-client privilege as the respondents have taken copies of confidential documents relating not only between Mr. Vivek Patel and Mr. Trikam Patel but also documents relating to other clients of the petitioner and entire digital data from the office and residence of the petitioner. 6.5 It was emphasised by learned senior advoca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oup contrary to the provisions of Section 126 of the Evidence Act and the doctrine of attorney-client privilege prevailing since ages. 6.9 It was further contended that the entire conduct of the search proceedings was contrary to the prescribed guidelines inasmuch as officers of the search party did not permit the petitioner and his family members to move out of the residential premises or to permit them to attend their daily routine so as to attend the college by the daughter of the petitioner as well as court by the petitioner himself. It was pointed out that respondents have also turned-off the CCTV cameras so that no evidence is available to show that many more persons on the side of the respondents conducted the search and seizure proceedings and who were not named in the Panchnama. 6.10 Ms. Hima Patel who has also filed the affidavit which is placed on record to point out that officer-respondent No.11 picked her up forcefully at 06.30 a.m. without any company of female officer and brought her to the office of the petitioner to open it. It was further submitted that though the entire search operation was over on 03rd November, 2023 itself, the search was prolonged till 0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....15 It was, therefore, submitted that if the case of the petitioner is relating to tax evasion either by Mr. Vivek Patel or Mr. Trikam Patel, search action could not have been initiated at the premises of the petitioner as there is no tax evasion or illegality committed by the petitioner. 6.16 In support of the submissions, reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in case of District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad v. Canara Bank reported in (2005) 1 SCC 496. "35. The earliest case in India to deal with 'privacy' and 'search and seizure' was M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954 SCR 1077) in the context of Art. 19(1)(f) and Art. 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The contention that search and seizure violated Art. 19(1)(f) was rejected, the Court holding that a mere search by itself did not affect any right to property, and though seizure affected it, such effect was only temporary and was a reasonable restriction on the right. The question whether search warrants for the seizure of documents from the accused were unconstitutional was not gone into. The Court, after referring to American authorities, observed that in US, because of the la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....81 US 479 where Douglas, J. referred to the theory of penumbras and peripheral rights and had stated that the right to privacy was implied in the right to free speech and could be gathered from the entirety of fundamental rights in the constitutional scheme, for, without it, these rights could not be enjoyed meaningfully. Mathew, J. also referred to Jane Roe v. Henry Wade (1973) 410 US 113 where it was pointed out that though the right to privacy was not specifically referred to in the US Constitution, the right did exist and "roots of that right may be found in the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, in the penumbras of the Bill of rights, in the Ninth Amendment, and in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment'. Mathew, J. stated that, however, the 'right to privacy was not absolute' and that the makers of our Constitution wanted to ensure conditions favourable to the pursuit of happiness as explained in Olmstead v. United States (1927) 277 US 438 (471); the privacy right can be denied only when an 'important countervailing interest is shown to be superior', or where a compelling State interest was shown. (Mathew, J. le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey General of Canada v. Federation of Law Societies of Canada reported in 2015 SCC Online Can SC 2. "[34] The Federation says that these provisions violate s. 8 of the Charter, mainly because they permit the search of law offices in ways that are not consistent with the principles set out by the Court in Lavallee. The Attorney General, on the other hand, argues that the searches and seizures authorized by the scheme are reasonable: they relate to a limited class of documents for a narrow, regulatory purpose and there are appropriate safeguards to protect solicitor-client privilege. [35] I respectfully do not accept the Attorney General's position. The regime authorizes sweeping law office searches which inherently risk breaching solicitor-client privilege. It does so in a criminal law setting and for criminal law purposes. In my view, the constitutional principles governing these searches are set out in the Court's decision in Lavallee, and this scheme does not comply with them. (2) Protection of Solicitor-Client Privilege [36] A law office search power is unreasonable unless it provides a high level of protection for material subject to so....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 and 49), her reasons, as have many others before and since, strongly affirmed the fundamental importance of solicitor-client privilege. As Arbour J. put it: It is critical to emphasize here that all information protected by the solicitor-client privilege is out of reach for the state.... any privileged information acquired by the state without the consent of the privilege holder is information that the state is not entitled to as a rule of fundamental justice. [Emphasis added; para. 24.] [39] I see no basis for thinking that solicitor-client communications should be more vulnerable to non-consensual disclosure in the course of a search and seizure by FINTRAC officials than they would be in the course of any other search by other law enforcement authorities. [44] The core principle of the decision is that solicitor-client privilege "must remain as close to absolute as possible if it is to retain relevance": Lavallee, at para. 36. This means that there must be a "stringent" norm to ensure its protection, such that any legislative provisions that interfere with the privilege more than "absolutely necessary" will be found to be unreasonable: para. 36. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at issue in this case. I will therefore proceed immediately to the second step of the s. 8 analysis, namely the reasonableness of the statutory intrusion on the privacy interests of solicitor's clients. 36. At this stage, the issue is whether the procedure set out by s. 488.1 results in a reasonable search and seizure of documents, including potentially privileged documents, in the possession of a lawyer. Indeed, s. 8 only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures: Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145. In commenting on the fact that a reasonable search and seizure is permitted under s. 8 of the Charter, Dickson J. stated, at pp. 159-60: This limitation on the right guaranteed by s. 8, whether it is expressed negatively as freedom from "unreasonable" search and seizure, or positively as an entitlement to a "reasonable" expectation of privacy, indicates that an assessment must be made as to whether in a particular situation the public's interest in being left alone by government must give way to the government's interest in intruding on the individual's privacy in order to advance its goals, notably those of law enforcement. Since Hunte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consent (for it is his privilege, and not the privilege of the confidential agent), that he should be enabled properly to conduct his litigation. ... Despite its importance, solicitor-client privilege is not absolute. It is subject to exceptions in certain circumstances. Jones, supra, examined whether the privilege should be displaced in the interest of protecting the safety of the public, per Cory J. at para. 51: Just as no right is absolute so too the privilege, even that between solicitor and client, is subject to clearly defined exceptions. The decision to exclude evidence that would be both relevant and of substantial probative value because it is protected by the solicitor-client privilege represents a policy decision. It is based upon the importance to our legal system in general of the solicitor-client privilege. In certain circumstances, however, other societal values must prevail. However, solicitor-client privilege must be as close to absolute as possible to ensure public confidence and retain relevance. As such, it will only yield in certain clearly defined circumstances, and does not involve a balancing of interests on a case-by-case basis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... placed on the following decisions. (i) Mectec v. Director of Income Tax Investigation - (2021) 433 ITR 203 (ii) Khem Chand Mukim v. Principal Director of Income Tax - (2020) 423 ITR 129 (iii)H.L. Sibal v. Commissioner of Income Tax - (1975) 101 ITR 112 (iv) District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank - (2004) SCC Online SC 1381 (v) Attorney General of Canada v. Federation of Law Societies of Canada - (2015) SCC Online Can SC 2 (vi) Regina v. Special Comm. Of Income Tax - (2003) 1 A.C. 563 (vii) Rajesh Bhatia v. G. Parimala - (2005) SCC Online AP 970 (viii) Sri Gangararapu Kameswara Rao v. Gangavarapu Satyanarayana - (1983) SCC Online AP 257 (ix) Larsen & Tubro v. Prime Displays P. Ltd. - (2002) SCC Online Bom 267 (x) The Superintendent Office v. The Registrar, Tamilnadu - (2010) SCC Online Mad 108 (xi) Ajit Jain v. Union of India - (2000) SCC Online Del 92 (xii) Pradeep Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. - (2006) SCC Online AII 1056 (xiii) Department of Income Tax v. S.R. Batliboi & Co. - (2009) 17 SCC 767 (xiv) Jignesh Farshubhai Kakkad v. Director of Income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....these documents is pivotal because the documents, when drafted in a certain way, can aid the parties under the transaction to conceal the unaccounted cash and save themselves from the clutches of the Income-Tax authorities. The Writ Petitioner specializes in drafting such documents and that has been corroborated from the unregistered notarized land documents found and seized from the office/residence. 9. This makes the Writ Petitioner who was searched, a predominant party to the said tax evasion, making him an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and not merely an Advocate for the buyer and/or seller. 9. The evidence seized in shocking volumes in-cash and other documents in physical as well as digital at the Writ Petitioner's office/residence to substantiate the above illustration and conclusion, and the fact that this search was not based on a mere conjecture premised on guess-work, but is a result of detailed investigation by the Income-Tax department for more than six-months, forming part of a comprehensive satisfaction note, has already been shown in sealed covers to the Hon'ble Court. A. Allegations with respect to the substantial question of legal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Petitioner, fortifies this action which was taken under Section 132(1)(c) also. 2. Petitioner's Averment: The Petitioner cannot be searched to obtain materials pertaining to a third party. Counter Arguments: A. There was sufficient material and information gathered as discussed in the Satisfaction Note, which goes to show that the Petitioner was in possession of money/cash, which has not been disclosed for the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and represents undisclosed income of the Petitioner. So, the question of searching the Petitioner to obtain information on third parties is a faint plea without any substance. Also, several incriminating materials have been found vis-à-vis the Petitioner himself, which proves that the belief framed by the department against the petitioner was right on point. B. In arguendo, assuming this to be the case, the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, still supports the Department's case. A search is done for the premises where there is a reason to believe that any material pertaining to Tax evasion would be found. It is not necessary that the search has to be cond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... satisfaction note, as stated above have been squarely corroborated with the findings of the search as the search action has resulted into seizure of Rs 60 lakhs of unexplained cash and recovery of numerous documents pertaining to land deals of the petitioner and many third parties/clients indicating substantial tax evasion, to whom the petitioner has not only aided in providing advice/drafting service but has also provided a safe place for secretly keeping such documents. H. Moreover, it is also to submit that once the search operations begin, whatever incriminating evidence is found by the authorized officers, is liable to be searched and seized if prima facie found to be in breach of provisions of Income Tax Act. Therefore, search is conducted on a premise to find material involving tax evasion. An officer of income tax can never turn his eyes blind, when he finds incriminating (tax evading) material beyond what is sought for in the satisfaction note. This too can never be the intention of the Parliament. Also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ITO Vs Seth Brothers, 1969 (74) ITR 836 (SC) (Pgs. 5-14, VOL I of convenience compilation) has hel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this section shall be issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year and the Assessing Officer has obtained prior approval of the specified authority to issue such notice: [Provided further that no such approval shall be required where the Assessing Officer, with the prior approval of the specified authority, has passed an order under clause (d) of section 148A to the effect that it is a fit case to issue a notice under this section:] [Provided further that no such approval shall be required where the Assessing Officer, with the prior approval of the specified authority, has passed an order under clause (d) of section 148A to the effect that it is a fit case to issue a notice under this section:] Explanation 2.-For the purposes of this section, where,- (iv) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, that any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned under section 132 or section 132A in case of any other person on or after the 1st day of April, 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ken upon the petitioner to retrieve the said document. Counter Arguments: A. As recorded in the Satisfaction Note, there was a discreet information available with the department that the petitioner assists his clients, in an illegal manner, in carrying out land transactions involving huge amounts of unaccounted cash and thereby defrauding national exchequer and facilitating his client in violating various provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and his office premises are used not only for facilitating the drafting of such illegal transactions but also as a safe harbor for secreting / secretly keeping the documents involving unaccounted cash transactions. The action of the department was aimed at searching many such illegal transactions aimed at Tax Evasion that the petitioner is facilitating for drafting and secreting at his office premises. B. It is also to submit that this was simply not the case that search was conducted to obtain one single MoU. However, assuming it to be so, the expressions employed in Section 132 would still permit the Department to carry out search actions, even though for a single MoU. It is trite law that warrant of authorization of search i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ieved that such clandestine/incriminating documents were stored in a clandestine manner so that they are not easily accessible even to the parties of the transactions. In the backdrop of these facts and also on the basis of years of experience of the department, as has been generally noticed in such cases over the years, unregistered documents are never provided in response to summons. D. Thus, it was reasonably apprehended that petitioner would not respond to the summons or would not produce the documents which may be useful for proceedings under the Income Tax Act before the Department. As a result, issuance of such summons would have lead to disclosure of information available with the department, which might have resulted in destruction of evidences, defeating the entire attempt to unearth the documents and materials having large bearing on Income Tax Act, 1961, which have been now unearthed by way of conducting search action. Therefore, it was a reasonable belief drawn by the Respondent No. 03 that the assessee shall not produce or cause to be produced any books of accounts or other documents which would be useful or relevant to the proceedings under the Act. 5. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring the court proceedings. 13. Nowhere in all these years of jurisprudence has any judicial forum even remotely interpreted Section 131(1A), Section 132(2)(b), Section 132(2)(c) and Section 148, to limit an exercise of search and seizure only to the extent of the parties that the Department is aware of, and return anything and everything related to any other party even though they may be involved and may have been benefited in the scheme of tax evasion facilitated by the Petitioner. 14. There is no provision to suggest that the an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961, cannot be a target person under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the purpose of Section 131(1A), Section 132(2)(b), Section 132(2)(c) and Section 148 (which states "any person or class of persons"). POST- SEARCH A. Allegations with respect to violation of Attorney client Privilege 15. All the averments with respect to violation of Attorney client Privilege, were comprehensively dealt with in the Affidavit in reply of Respondent no. 3 dated 13.12.2023 at para no. 84 to 87. However, the said arguments and the rebuttals made in the court are reiterated and rephrased as below....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue." This communication, being made in furtherance of a criminal purpose, is not protected from disclosure. (c) A, being charged with embezzlement, retains B, an attorney, to defend him. In the course of the proceedings, B observes that an entry has been made in A's account book, charging A with the sum said to have been embezzled, which entry was not in the book at the commencement of his employment. This being a fact observed by B in the course of his employment, showing that a fraud has been committed since the commencement of the proceedings, it is not protected from disclosure. B. Three things are apparent from the above provision: a. Any professional communication between a lawyer and a client in the course and for the purpose of such employment by the client of his lawyer is protected by privilege (which is a right enforceable by the client and not by the lawyer). b. The said professional communication moves away from the blanket of privilege when it is made in furtherance of any illegal purpose. (Illustration b) c. the privilege is not available for any transaction which shows that a fraud has been committed, which an Advocate observes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner, then in places like Gujarat where there is a huge involvement of unaccounted money in property transactions, all the businessman would prefer to keep all their documents at a place of lawyer or would start cohabitating their offices with the office of the lawyer and such places would turn into tax havens. Thus, it is prayed that the immunity sought by the petitioner merely because he happens to be a lawyer, is ill founded and liable to be rejected. Separation of Incriminating and non-incriminating digital data E. Much has been debated about the separation of incriminating and non-incriminating data in the court. It is humbly submitted that the identification and separation of incriminating documents in the digital data was not possible on the premises owing to the fact that the process is quite time consuming and also can lead to changes in hash value. The detailed procedure is described in the technical note annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on 23.01.24. During the post search proceedings, the digital data that is prima facie found to be incriminating would pass through a series of investigation like calling for data from the third parties like sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he provisions of law. Section 126 is the Right of the Client And Not The Advocate H. Not even a single client whose documents have been seized has approached court or has become a party to the writ petition to challenge such seizure on the grounds of attorney- client privilege. The privilege enshrined in the section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act is of the client per se and not of the attorney in the first place. The client will have multiple opportunities to contest the seizure when being summoned/ questioned by the income tax authorities. Also, the adjudicating authorities on case-to-case basis can decide if the attorney client privilege should be accorded to a particular seizure or not. But at this stage the petitioner is trying to derail the entire process of investigation by invoking section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, that too without giving any specific reasons/details of the matters to be pleaded in court with respect to third parties whose documents have been seized. I. There are case laws that also support that the privilege under Section 126 of the Evidence Act, 1872, is available only to the client and not the Advocate. In this regard, reliance is placed on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....incriminating, as neither party would be able to come to consensus on the same. B. However, the present case cannot be seen in the light of Batliboi (Supra) as the facts of petitioner's case can be clearly distinguished from the facts that led to the case in Batliboi (Supra). The brief facts of the Batliboi case are that when the Income-Tax Department was conducting a search action on the assessee, the EMAAR-MGF Group, one auditor from S.R. Batliboi and Co. firm, who was not at all the target assessee for the department and accidently happened to be at the premises of the target assessee and two laptops belonging to this auditor firm, who happened to be accidently present there were also seized during the search. When the question of whether the laptops could be kept under seizure was deliberated, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the laptops will have to be returned, however it also held that all the data on the laptops must be made available for inspection by the Income-Tax Department to verify if it pertains to the target assessee in question. In fact, vide paras 3 and 4, it held that: "3. The respondents shall provide authenticated hard copies of the data pert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessing officer for making a proper assessment on the target assessee group, was directed to be handed over as per the judgement in the case of S. R. Batliboi and Co. In the facts of the present case, since the digital devices were seized from the office of the petitioner, all the files therein would be connected to the target assessee (petitioner), and would be required by the assessing officer for making a proper income assessment of the petitioner. E. Thirdly, even in Batliboi (Supra), the Assessing officer was given the liberty to choose what he/she deemed as relevant to the case of target assessee. In case S.R. Batliboi & Co., disagreed, it had the liberty to challenge it. There was no question of appointing an independent authority to deliberate on what files were incriminating and non-incriminating. In fact, the Judgement clearly states that any document related to the target assessee has to be handed over despite it being either incriminating or non-incriminating. F. If such was the standard established by Batliboi (Supra) in ruling in favour of a party who was not even the target assessee, to stretch what the Hon'ble Supreme Court had said and appoint a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmation before the dept prior to such inspection". It is respectfully submitted that in the case of petitioner no roving or fishing inquiry was made. The dictionary meaning of the phrase "roving enquiry" is "to ask questions which are not at all connected with the subject matter". In the case of petitioner, there was sufficient material and information on the record and on the basis of which reasons to believe in the case of petitioner himself was separately and clearly recorded in the Satisfaction Note. There was sufficient material and information available on record which suggested that the petitioner assists his clients, in an illegal manner, in carrying out land transactions involving huge amounts of unaccounted cash and thereby defrauding national exchequer and facilitating his client in violating various provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and his office premises are used not only for facilitating the drafting of such illegal transactions but also as a safe harbor for secreting / secretly keeping the documents involving unaccounted cash transactions. Thus, the department knew what it was looking for before searching the target assessee. The department was aware of the nature ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applied, there ought to have either been a law that states that lawyers cannot be searched, or a law that states that lawyers can be searched. Neither is present in the Income-Tax Act, 1961. B. It is submitted further that, on the contrary, as per Criminal Procedure Code, Section 91, summons can be made for production of documents by the court/police and only the records mentioned in section 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act i.e documents relating to affairs of State and official communications are protected. No such protection is carved out for section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act by the legislature. If there cannot be any immunity for summoning documents protected u/s 126, under section 91 of the CrPC, it can also not be restricted to be searched and seized under CrPC under section 94 or for that matter under Income Tax Act u/s 132, as by virtue of section 132(13) of the Income Tax Act, the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code relating to searches and seizure shall apply to the searches and seizure under section 132 of the Income Tax Act. It may be important to note that powers of police to search the lawyer's office is well recognised and ruled by the Hon'ble High....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. Therefore, the Writ Petitioner's reliance on the same, lacks locus. e. All third parties who feel that their Right under Section 126 of the Evidence Act, 1872, is violated have plenty of opportunities to contest the same. It is to be noted that till now, not a single client of the Writ Petitioner has come forward stating the same. PART- II DURING THE SEARCH ACTION A. Allegations with respect to Hima Patel 18. All the averments with respect to Ms. Hima Patel were comprehensively dealt with in the Affidavit in reply of Respondent no. 3 dated 13.12.2023 at para no.58 to para No. 66 and at para No. 69. However, the said arguments and the rebuttals made in the court are reiterated and rephrased as below: 1. 1. Petitioner's averment: Ms. Hima Patel was forcefully taken to the office premises of the Petitioner. Counter Arguments: A. It is humbly submitted that no iota of threat or coercion or force was used on Ms. Hima Patel and the same can be corroborated by seeing the video footage of CCTV Camera Recording made available by the petitioner himself. B. Ms. Hima Patel has categorically submitted in her statement that she has given h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... representation of female officers/officials. Serving of summons did not fall in any of these criterias specified in the Manual. Also it is to mention that neither the residence of Ms. Hima Patel was occupied by only lady/children nor it was to be searched. So, the available lady constables which were hardly 20 in number were sent to the residential premises (where lady officers/officials were not available considering the skewed ratio of females in the workforce of the department) on priority basis, following the guidelines laid down in the search and seizure manual 2007. So, it is appropriate to mention at this juncture that not sending a lady official/officer/constable was not borne out of intention but was borne out of dire and unavoidable limitation. Further, as discussed there was no requirement as per the search and seizure manual, 2007 to send a lady officer/constable to serve a summons. 4. Petitioner's Averment: The Department took away mobile phones of her and her family members. Counter Arguments: A. When the Inspector went to the place of Ms. Hima patel to serve the summons, it was noted that some of the family members tried to intimate ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s: A. It may be noted that Department wanted to maintain the sanctity of search and in view of the fact that the petitioner himself could not be available to remain present at office, as he was present at his residence where a parallel search was being conducted and therefore, Ms. Hima Patel, who was inextricably involved in the work of the petitioner at the office of the petitioner regularly and who had access to the key of the office, was summoned at the office to remain present in the search proceedings. B. Ms. Hima Patel was requested to cooperate in the proceedings, which she did voluntarily without any objection. She returned to her own residence at the end of each day's search and voluntarily returned back every morning to the office premises of the Petitioner, being the responsible person, in front of whom the premises could be searched, in the absence of the Petitioner being physically present in the premises, since it was her place of work. B. Allegations with respect to purported restrictions made on Petitioner and his family members: 19. All the averments with respect to alleged restrictions made on the petitioner and his family....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lasses. It is a matter of record, which can be verified from his coaching class. Needless to say, if the daughter of petitioner had informed about her willingness to go to college, she would have been permitted to attend the same as was done in the case of Petitioner's son. 3. Petitioner's Averment: Movement of Petitioner's son and wife were also restricted. Counter Arguments: A. It is respectfully submitted that all the family members were allowed free movement within the house and all the basic necessities of all the family members were duly taken care of including movements of house help (in and out of the house) after following due procedure. Petitioner's son was also allowed to attend his coaching classes during the search after following due procedures. B. Also, on request, the Petitioner's son was allowed to meet his friend when he visited the house. C. It is also submitted that the Petitioner and his wife were also allowed to visit the temple on request on the morning of 06.11.2023. D. The said facts can also be verified from the two independent witnesses who were also present at the time of the search being conducted. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed back to the Petitioner and his family members, before the search was concluded. C. Allegations with respect to search being conducted in an unreasonable manner 20. All the averments with respect to restrictions made on the petitioner and his family members during the search proceedings, were comprehensively dealt with in the Affidavit in reply of Respondent no. 3 dated 13.12.2023 at para no. 67, para no. 68, Para No. 89 to para no. 93 and para no. 95. However, the said arguments and the rebuttals made in the court are reiterated and rephrased as below: 1. Petitioner's averment: The digital data within the personal mobile phone and other personal digital devices of the petitioner as well as his wife was copied and the search was in violation of constitutional right of privacy. Counter Arguments: A The Right to Privacy is recognized only under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This right can always be taken away with the authority of law. In the present case, the authority of law is expressly manifested by the language employed in Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act. If at all there has been a breach of the right to privacy, such a brea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The same is guided by the SOP issued by the CBDT in this regard vide F. No. 286/55/2015-IT (Inv-II). B It may also be noted that CCTV has a limited period of storage capacity and the older recordings get erased / overwritten automatically, so as to view and analyze and to get clarity on the activities carried out at the premises of search, the maximum hours of recordings need to be viewed, therefore the recording was halted to avoid any loss of data. C. All the procedures and proceedings have been carried out in presence of two independent witnesses and nothing untoward has taken place during the entire course of the proceedings. No sort of high-handedness has been resorted to and the same has also not been alleged by the petitioner, though the CCTV was switched off. D. The only allegation with respect to CCTV being switched off is that officers not authorized also visited the office of the petitioner during the search. This allegation is false as only the Officers who were authorized as per the Warrant of Authorization had visited the office premises of the petitioner. 3. Petitioner's Averment: Even though, all seizures and inventory were taken....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s why the search action took four/five days as various aspects of the search involved complex procedures as stated above, while ensuring the petitioner got timely meals, adequate day rest and night rest. 4. Petitioner's Averment: The digital data of computer devices of the petitioner as well as physical data which were found at the office was copied and seized. Counter Arguments: A. With respect to seizure of physical documents: Only two loose Paper files, containing photo copy of original document, found during search, approximately 700 pages in numbers have been taken in the custody of the department; and the same is indicated at Annexure A1 and Annexure A2, as mentioned in the Panchanama. Only the documents which were prima facie found to be useful for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, were photocopied and seized by the Department. It is clarified that no seizure of any original document of the Petitioner was made by the Department, so as not to paralyze his operation. B. With respect to the seizure of the digital data: While dealing with the digital data, utmost care was taken to maintain the integrity of the dig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... extraction of digital data is carried out to bring the files in viewable format and to recover the deleted and encrypted files. A team of technical experts are engaged for this process also. Post extraction the digital data is analysed to identify the incriminating evidence and corroborate with the facts of the case to reach to a conclusion that the data is useful for or relevant to the proceedings under Income Tax Act, 1961. These methods and processes are being followed all over India, in all the jurisdictions, from all these years in all the search and seizure actions carried out by the department. Similar methods are followed by other Central Investigation Agencies also. Such techniques and methods have become quite essential in the current digital scenario and serves two-fold purpose of finding the right evidence and maintaining the integrity and evidentiary value of the digital evidence found. 5. Petitioner's Averment: Search was conducted in unreasonable manner Counter Arguments: A. The Petitioner cannot dispute three aspects. Firstly, the search was preceded by a valid recording of the reasons to believe under Section 132(1) on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sufficient to vitiate the search action or should not be inappropriately allowed to be used to create an outrage amongst the citizens of the country against the working of Government department. 22. Additional Prayer: The Hon'ble Court's kind attention is invited to the legal provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereby in a case, if any escapement of income is found for AY 2020-21 (FY 2019-20) and for AY 2017-18 (FY 2016-17), where escapement of income is Rs. 50 Lakhs or more, the time limit for issuance of notice u/s 148 (for initiating remedial action), expires on 31.03.2024 as per section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, for this purpose the Investigation Wing needs to disseminate such information to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer well before the expiry of the limitation period. Therefore, necessary observations may be made by this Hon'ble Court, with regards to the exclusion of the period of litigation while calculating the limitation period under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. In rejoinder, learned senior advocate Mr. Soparkar submitted that respondent No.3 in his reply at Page No.288 has averred that one of the various sources based on which the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts on affidavits contrary to the facts as none of the averments show any active participation of the petitioner except providing legal services to his clients. 8.4 It was, therefore, submitted that the petitioner, even during the course of search as well as in his statement recorded, has only discharged his duty as a professional and his involvement if any, is limited to the role as a professional and therefore, he cannot be roped in an on-going investigation on the target groups as mentioned in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents. 8.5 It was submitted that it is established law that search cannot be conducted on the basis of mere suspicion as the same would then become a roving and fishing inquiry which is prohibited under the law. Reliance was placed on the decision in case of Ajit Jain v. Union of India reported in (2000) 242 ITR 302 (Del.) which was upheld by the Apex Court reported in 2003 SCC Online (SC) 1464. 8.6 Learned senior advocate thereafter referred to and relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Vijay Metal Works reported in AIR 1982 Bom. 6 wherein the Bombay High Court has stressed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted that the respondents have tried to make vague and incorrect statements and vague arguments by assumption and presumption including the statements against the record to suggest that gold bars in kilograms amounting to crores of rupees have been found and the digital data seized from the petitioner's house and such statements are complete fabrication and without any basis in view of the fact that gold of 211 gms. was only found during the course of search which is seized by the respondents which is evident from the Panchnama placed on record. 8.10 It was, therefore, submitted that the respondent authorities are not required to be permitted to abuse the process of law for conducting such illegal search by taking away the data from the office premises of the petitioner, who is a professional advocate, under the guise of incriminating material. It was, therefore, prayed that petition be allowed as prayed for. 9. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the submissions made by both the sides, the following questions would arise for our consideration. (a) Whether the search initiated by the respondent authorities at the resid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, or (c) any person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and such money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing represents either wholly or partly income or property 11[which has not been, or would not be, disclosed] for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or this Act (hereinafter in this section referred to as the undisclosed income or property). xxxx (4A) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search, it may be presumed- (i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and (iii) that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e expected concealment is more thanks. I crore; (#)Search operation will also be mounted when there is evidence of hidden unaccounted assets arising out of a conspiracy to cause public harm, terrorism, smuggling, narcotics, fraud, gangsterism, fake currency, fake stamp papers and such other manifestations; Taxpayers who are professionals of excellence should not be searched without there being compelling evidence and confirmation of substantial tax evasion. 2. Henceforth, search operations shall be authorised only by the concerned DGIT (Inv.), who will be accountable for the action initiated by the officers working under him. He should also ensure that all the work relating to search & seizure, like post-search inquiries, preparation of appraisal report and handing over of seized books of account, etc., should be completed by the Investigation Wing within a period of 60 days from the date on which the last of the authorisations for search was executed. 3. DGs IT (Inv.) are requested to ensure that officers of competence and proven integrity are taken in the Investigation Wing. The officers posted in the Investigation Wing will be trained at NADT in a spec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Code-" 9. Similar powers entrusted to those whose duty it was to enforce taxation laws were upheld by this Court in The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and others v. R. S. Jhaver and others. In that case section 41 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1969 was. under challenge. It was held by this Court that an officer empowered by the Government under sub-section(1) of section 41 was entitled to effect a search and seize goods and articles as provided in that section. Dealing with the question of search and seizure in a taxing statute the court observed at page 158: "Now it has not been and cannot be disputed that the entries in the various Lists of the Seventh Schedule must be given the widest possible interpretation. It is also not in doubt that while making a law under any entry in the Schedule it is competent to the legislature to make all such incidental and ancillary provisions as may be necessary to effectuate the law; particularly it cannot be disputed that in the case of a taxing statute it is open to the legislature to enact provisions which would check evasion of tax. It is under this power to check evasion that provision for search and seizure is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of tax." 11. We are, therefore, to see what are the inbuilt safeguards in section 132 of the Income-tax Act. In the first place, it must be noted that the power to order search and seizure is vested in the highest officers of the department. Secondly the exercise of this power can only follow a reasonable belief entertained by such officer that any of the three conditions mentioned in section 132(1)(a), (b) and (c), exists. In this connection it may be further pointed out that under sub-rule (2) of rule 112, the Director of Inspection or the Commissioner, as the case may be, has to record his reasons before the authorisation is issued to the officers mentioned in sub-section (1). Thirdly, the authorisation for the search cannot be in favour of any officer below the rank of an Income-tax Officer. Fourthly, the authorisation is for specific purposes enumerated in (i) to (v) in sub-section (1) all of which are. strictly limited to the object of the search. Fifthly when money, bullion etc. is seized the Income-tax Officer is to make a summary enquiry with a view to determine how much of what is seized will be retained by him to cover the estimated tax liability and how much wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he held the custody of the valuables. It will be then for the Income-tax Officer to ascertain the person concerned under sub-section (5). 13. It was next argued that the power for directing a search is given to an authority like the Director of Inspection who, it is submitted, is, in the very nature of things, incapable of forming any reasonable belief with regard to the requirements of section 132(1) (a) (b) & (c). The contention was that the assessee has no contact in the matter of assessment with the Director and, therefore, he can hardly entertain any belief, reasonable or otherwise. It is conceded that the Income-tax Officer or his superiors in the direct line, like the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner, may be in a position to entertain the requisite belief on account of their having direct and first hand knowledge of the financial circumstances of the assessee, the defaults he has committed or is likely to commit, etc. But the Director of Inspection has no opportunity and is, therefore, thoroughly unable to form any opinion. This would only mean that any belief entertained by him would be an arbitrary belief and legislation investing such an offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authority, has received any secret information ,which, in its opinion, was reliable, it may be possible for it to have reason to believe that any person is in possession 'of any money, bullion, jewellery etc. which is undisclosed income or property and such property is secreted in some place. But Mr. Karkhanis submitted that so far as sub- clause (b) is concerned, it win be impossible for one to say that the authority can reasonably entertain the belief that if a requisition is made the person concerned will not or would not produce or cause to be produced the required documents. In his submission, the authority, can entertain that belief only when a requisition is made and within reasonable time given the document is not produced. That is provided for in sub- clause (a). But to say. that the authority can also have reason to believe that if a requisition is made the person concerned will not in future produce the document is, according to Mr. Karkhanis, a conclusion which is impossible to draw on any conceivable facts. We must say that if Mr. Karkhanis really thinks that there is substance in this argument, than he must be blissfully unaware of the manner in which income-tax is ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent authority for initiation of the search proceedings are justified or not. 11.2 During the course of hearing, learned Additional Solicitor General has provided the satisfaction note recorded prior to initiation of the search by the competent authority in a sealed cover to this Court. Learned Additional Solicitor General has also provided copies of other seized materials and documents during the course of hearing to demonstrate that what is recorded in the satisfaction note prior to the search was actually found to be true during the course of search. We are, therefore, of the opinion that on perusal of the satisfaction recorded by the respondent authority for initiation of the search, it does not require any interference by this Court and this Court is satisfied for the satisfaction recorded by the respondent authority for initiation of the search against the petitioner and therefore, challenge by the petitioner to the search initiated under Section 132 of the Act would fail. Therefore, without going into the further details with regard to the submissions made by both the sides on pre-search action of the respondent authorities, we are of the opinion that the petition would fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gard to the search operation. It is very difficult to understand by any stretch of imagination as to the way in which a lady advocate is coerced by respondent No.11 under the instructions of other respondents who have authorized him to serve the summons and thereafter by compelling Ms.Hima Patel to accompany him in absence of any lady police officer to the office premises of the petitioner and compelling her to open the same at 07.00 a.m. on 03rd November, 2023. Such an action on part of the respondents clearly shows that respondents have acted high-handedly, for which no explanation is forthcoming except that in order to prevent the sanctity of search operation, such action would require. Such lame excuse is rejected and action of the respondents is deprecated. (ii) Another lame excuse was given by the respondent that inspite of request made for more lady constables, only eight lady constables were provided by the concerned authority and therefore, no lady constable was sent with respondent No.11 at the residence of Ms.Hima Patel. Such an excuse by the respondent authority is nothing but an afterthought as it was known to the respondent authority that summons was to be se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of copying the data imaging, the petitioner and his family members were detained as if they were under house-arrest till 06th November, 2023. Copying of digital data has nothing to do with free movement of the petitioner and his family members. Therefore, such an action on part of the respondents is also highly deprecated. Merely because the search operation continued at other places of targeted group upto 06th November, 2023, the respondents could not have continued the search operation at the premises of the petitioner upto 06th November, 2023 depriving the petitioner to attend the court to conduct his cases which has resulted in violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion that respondent authorities have acted high-handedly with the petitioner and his family members while conducting search operation without any basis and during the course of hearing, a lame excuse is made out to defend the actions of the respondent authority which is not in accordance with law. 11.4 With regard to the contention of the petitioner that respondent authorities have tried to m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trine of attorney-client privilege, it is a very old concept and that would continue to operate irrespective of the provision Section 126 of the Evidence Act which has formally codified the same so far as the Indian context is concerned. Section 126 of the Evidence Act provides for privilege of the professional communication between the client and the attorney as such communication cannot be disclosed unless and until the same is permitted by the client to the attorney. However, in the facts of the case, when during the course of search such materials were seized by the respondent authorities, then respondent authorities are entitled to use such material if found incriminating so far as it refers to the petitioner is concerned. 12.1 The Delhi High Court in the case of S.R. Batliboi & Co. (supra), in somewhat similar facts, after analyzing the provision of Section 132(1) of the Act and after referring to the decision of the Apex Court in cases of ITO v. Seth Bros. [(1969) 2 SCC 324] and Manish Maheshwari v. Assistant CIT [(2007) 3 SCC 794], held as under. "12. Over two score years ago the Division Bench of this Court had opined in N.K. Textiles Mills -vs- CIT, [1966] 61 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, be stated that the findings that the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Officer amounted to "indiscriminate search" and was beyond the "legitimate scope of Section 132" depends upon the evidence in each case and no general rule can be laid down in that behalf. 14. Coming back to the contention of the Petitioner, it has argued that the laptops that have been seized by the Respondent have confidential information relating to the accounts of 46 other clients, having no relation or business dealings with the Assessee, and seizure of these accounts will amount to serious breach of confidentiality which they are bound to protect by the principles of professional ethics. It is also our view that the Income Tax Department cannot make fishing or roving inquiry to initiate proceedings against all these companies which are the clients of the Petitioner. It has been argued orally as well as in the synopsis that the Petitioner cannot assist any party in breaking the law; this submission is illogical since it cannot be presumed that the accounts relating to 46 other clients of the Petitioner contained in the two laptops are of this character. The rigours of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hird party. The extracted paragraph from Canara Bank particularly calls for reproduction:- 50. In the Income Tax Act, 1961 elaborate provisions are made in regard to "search and seizure" in Section 132; power to requisition books of account, etc. in Section 132-A; power to call for information as stated in Section 133. Section 133(6) deals with power of officers to require any bank to furnish any information as specified there. There are safeguards. Section 132 uses the words "in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe". (emphasis supplied) Section 132(1-A) uses the words "in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to suspect". Section 132(13) says that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relating to searches and seizure shall apply, so far as may be, to searches and seizures under Sections 132(1) and 132(1- A). There are also Rules made under Section 132(14). Likewise Section 132-A(1) uses the words "in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe". (emphasis supplied) Section 133 which deals with the power to call for information from banks and others uses the words "for the purposes of thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... forthwith return the laptops to the Petitioner. 12.2 The above decision of the Delhi High Court was carried before the Apex Court being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.15043 of 2009 in which the Apex Court, by order dated 17th August, 2009, on consensus of the parties, held as under. "Leave granted. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that the two laptops in question be de-sealed and the data be examined by the Director General of the National Informatics Centre or his nominee/representative in the presence of the representatives of the I.T. Department, the appellants and the EMAAR-MGF Group. All the data on the laptops shall be available for inspection by the I.T. Department to verify whether the data pertains to the Assessee in question. It shall be open to the I.T. Department to copy the data relating to such folders/files in the said two laptops relating to the following entities/clients:- 1. Boulder Hills Leisure (P) Ltd. 2. Cyberabad Convention Centre (P) Ltd. 3. Emaar Hills Township (P) Ltd. The Respondents shall provide authenticated hard copies of the data pertaining to EMAAR-MG....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that person's handwriting, and in the case of a document stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stamped and executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested. Thus, sub-section (4A) of Section 132 of the Act which has been inserted by Amendment Act of 1975 with effect from 01st October, 1975, presumption is to be made with regard to the documents, books of accounts etc. found during the course of the search belonging to the person who is searched. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner, who is a practicing advocate, has been searched by the respondent authorities and during the course of the search, respondent authorities have gathered digital and physical documents from the residence and office premises of the petitioner. It was, therefore, submitted by learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondent authorities, that the respondents are entitled to have the presumption with regard to the documents and other materials seized during the course of search and the copies of documents taken by forensic imaging by the respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner has no connection with such documents. 13.2 In response to such submission, learned senior advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that as per the doctrine of attorney- client privilege which is a well known principle, the respondent authorities cannot take any action on the basis of any document much less any incriminating documents of the client of the petitioner found during the course of search. It was submitted that clients of the petitioner have reposed the confidence and trust upon the petitioner with regard to their confidential documents and information and under the guise of search, the respondent authorities cannot take any action in breach of the trust reposed by the clients of the petitioner on the basis of the documents, if according to the respondents, they are incriminating documents. 13.3 Reliance was placed on the decision in case of Canara Bank (supra), wherein the Apex Court, after considering the right of privacy qua search and seizure in other countries as well as development of law in India and more particularly confidentiality of relationship between the Bank and its customers, has referred to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... discovery of any fraud or omission in relation to any duty, the search or taking notes or extracts thereof, cannot be valid. It was, therefore, submitted that the respondent authorities have misunderstood the provision of Section 126 of the Evidence Act vis-a-vis doctrine of attorney- client privilege. 14. Considering such submission and the law developed over a period of time as has been considered by the Supreme Court of Canada as well as the American Court and the Apex Court, it appears that provision of Section 126 of the Evidence Act as has been relied on by the petitioner is required to be applied to the facts of the case from the point of view of the petitioner and not from the point of view of the clients of the petitioner whom the petitioner wants to protect by preferring this petition. 14.1 Therefore, while analysing the provision of Section 126 of the Evidence Act, we are of the opinion that the same would not be applicable to the facts of the case in entirety as the communication or documents in possession of the petitioner would continue to be protected, subject to as explained by the said provision by giving Illustrations read with the Proviso of the said provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e data and the extracted hard disk containing the non-incriminating data shall be permanently sealed and shall not be accessed thereafter by the Income-tax Department. Both, the said hard disk and the working copy of the data shall be sealed in the presence of the Petitioner. A period of 4 weeks shall be required for completing this entire exercise depending upon the cooperation of the Petitioner." 15. Considering the above approach of the respondent authorities which is clarified on oath by respondent No.3 who is a Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Ahmedabad, being a responsible officer for conducting search under the provisions of Section 132 of the Act, we are of the opinion that judicious discretion shall be exercised by the respondent authorities while arriving at the conclusion with regard to the incriminating documents falling under two categories viz. as per Illustration (a) of Section 126 and Illustrations (b) and (c) of Section 126 read with the Proviso to the said Section and thereafter abide by the aforesaid averments in the affidavit placed on record. 15.1 It is true that initially this Court has shown apprehension as to who will decide the incrim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of this proceeding, the time consumed by this petition in this Court would be considered for applying the provisions of the Act. ============= Document 1 पà¥à¤°.9 आपको कà¥à¤› और कहना है। उ. 9 सर, अब मà¥à¤à¥‡ कà¥à¤› नहीं कहना है। उपरोकà¥à¤¤ दिया गया बयान मैंने पूरà¥à¤£ होश हवाश, सही मानसिक सà¥à¤¥à¤¿à¤¤à¤¿, बिना किसी नशे के à¤à¤µà¤‚ बिना किसी दबाव के दिया है। यह पूरà¥à¤£ रà¥à¤ª से सतà¥à¤¯ है और यह मà¥à¤ पर à....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uage-viz to the deponent who signed the statement in token of having understood its contents and agreeing that it had been correctly recorded. (6) The following other important persons were present in the place of search and either took an active part in or helped the search proceedings: (7) Name 1. Shri Pushpak Mavani (Digital forensic analyst) 2. Shri Dhanush D (Digital forensic Expert) Relationship None None The search commenced on 03/11/2023 at 8:55 A.M. /-PM. The proceedings were closed on 06/11/2023 at 10:30 am. /p.m. as finally concluded/as temporarily concluded for the day-to commenced-subsequently for which purpose seals were placed on the entire place on -in our presence. (8) Before leaving the above mentioned place of search, the entire search party again offered themselves for personal search which was taken/declined. The above panchanama has been read and it is certified that it has been correctly by us in-local-language by Shri/Smt recorded. Signature of the Authorized micer 6/11/23 JADARSH TIWAR Name Designation Deputy Director of Income- Ra Date: 6/11/2023 Signature of the p....