Comparison of section 246 "Power regarding discovery, production of evidence, etc." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion). The provisions affect taxpayers, income-tax authorities and intermediary institutions (e.g., banks). The text supplied does not state an effective date. Background & Scope Statutory hook: Clause/Section 246 is situated within the Income-tax Act/Bill, 2025 and expressly cross-references the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and sections 159 and 247 of the same enactment. The provision purports to vest specified income-tax authorities with "the same powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit" in respect of discovery, attendance, production of books and issuing commissions. The text supplies no definitions beyond the list of authorities and the listed powers. Statutory Provision Mode Text....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng Officer or Assistant Director to record reasons for impounding and prescribes an initial retention period of up to fifteen days exclusive of holidays, with further retention only with prior sanction of an approving authority. Interpretation The text indicates legislative intent to endow income-tax authorities with quasi-judicial fact-finding and evidence-gathering powers mirroring those of a civil court. The specification that these powers apply "for the purposes of this Act" suggests their use is limited to tax-related inquiries, but procedural limitations and safeguards (beyond impounding recording/period) are not set out in the text. The explicit cross-reference to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, imports established court mechani....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e in this behalf," indicating reliance on subordinate legislation for procedural detail. Specific interactions with other statutes (e.g., Banking Regulation Act, Evidence Act, privilege doctrines) are Not stated in the document. Differences between the Act Version (Document 1) and the Bill (Old) Version (Document 2) and Practical Impact * Reference to Board notification language in sub-section (2)(a): Bill reads "notified by the Board, for the purposes of making any inquiry or investigation in relation to an agreement referred to in section 159;" Act reads "notified by the Board in this behalf, for the purposes of making any inquiry or investigation in respect of an agreement referred to in section 159;" * Practical impact: largely dra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s likely to be concealed by such person or class of persons within his jurisdiction." * Practical impact: The Act changes the cross-reference to different subclauses of section 247(1) (from 247(1)(b)(i)-(viii) to 247(1)(i)-(vii)) and inserts the suspicion requirement and jurisdictional phrase. That indicates a substantive redrafting: the Act narrows or adjusts which specific enumerated actions u/s 247(1) trigger use of these powers, and ties exercise to reasonable suspicion about concealment within jurisdiction. * Impounding and retention (sub-section (3)): Bill: "may, subject to the rules made in this behalf, impound any books of account or other documents produced before it in any proceeding under this Act." Act: grants power to "impo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o sanctioned extension) applies. * Record-keeping/evidence points: Given the impound/retention power and court-like discovery, maintaining organised originals and producing certified copies where appropriate becomes critical. The text does not specify procedures for copying, challenge mechanisms, or timelines for return - Not stated in the document. * Jurisdictional clarity: The Act's insertion of jurisdictional language for higher-level investigative officers may constrain the extraterritorial exercise of these powers compared with the Bill wording, but the exact territorial ambit is Not stated in the document. * Authority to act without pending proceedings: Both texts permit certain authorities to exercise powers even when no pr....