Section 251 Copying, extraction, retention and release of books of account and documents seized or requisitioned.

Income-tax Act, 2025

At a Glance

Clause 251 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) prescribes procedures for copying, extraction, retention and release of books of account and other material seized or requisitioned under clauses 247 and 248 of the Bill. It matters for taxpayers whose records are seized and for tax authorities conducting searches/requisitions. Effective date: Not stated in the document.

Background & Scope

Statutory hooks: Clause 251 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) operates in the context of clauses 247 and 248 which empower authorised officers to seize or requisition assets, books, documents, electronic media or computer systems. The clause addresses transmission of seized material to the territorial Assessing Officer where the seizing officer lacks jurisdiction, the right of the person from whom material was seized to make copies or extracts, retention limits for authorities, and an objection mechanism to the Board. Definitions: The text does not contain separate definitional provisions; specific terms (such as "material", "approving authority", "Board") are used without in-text definitions. Not stated in the document.

Statutory Provision Mode

Text & Scope

Clause 251 covers four principal areas: (1) handover to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction where the seizing authorised officer lacks jurisdiction; (2) procedure allowing the person whose material has been seized to make copies or take extracts in the presence of an empowered person; (3) permissible retention periods for seized material by authorised officers, and conditions for extended retention with approval; and (4) an objection procedure to the Board against approvals for extended retention.

Interpretation

The clause indicates a legislative intent to balance investigative prerogatives of authorised officers with safeguards for persons from whom material is seized. By mandating the opportunity to make copies/extracts "at such place and time as appointed, and in the presence of a person empowered by such officer", the Bill envisages controlled access rather than unrestricted removal. Retention time limits (one month from end of quarter where assessment/recomputation is made, and a 30-day outer limit beyond completion of proceedings) suggest an intent to minimise prolonged deprivation of lawful possession. The right to apply to the Board signals an administrative remedy against potential administrative excess.

Exceptions/Provisos

No express exceptions or detailed provisos (for example, for ongoing criminal investigations, national security, or preservation of evidence) are stated in the clause. Not stated in the document.

Illustrations

• Example 1: A taxpayer's computer hard drive is seized by an authorised officer not having territorial jurisdiction; per Clause 251(1), the officer must handover the seized computer to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction, and that Assessing Officer will exercise powers under sub-sections (2) to (4). (Facts drawn solely from clause wording.)
• Example 2: After seizure, the taxpayer applies to make copies of accounting records; the authorised officer or Assessing Officer must permit copying/extraction at an appointed time and place in the presence of an empowered person per Clause 251(2).
• Example 3: Material is retained until one month from the end of the quarter in which the order of assessment or reassessment or recomputation is made; extension beyond that requires written reasons and approving authority approval per Clause 251(3).

Interplay

Clause 251 expressly refers to clauses 247 and 248 for seizure/requisition powers, and to assessment/reassessment/recomputation events for calculating retention periods. It does not reference other statutory provisions, Rules, notifications or existing Income-tax Act, 1961 provisions within the text of the clause. Not stated in the document: any cross-references to administrative rules, forms, the identity of the "approving authority", or procedural timelines for making applications to the Board.

Differences Between Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 251 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) and Practical Impact

• Bill (Old Version): Clause 251(1) refers to "the authorised officer, referred to in section 247(1)(b) has no jurisdiction over the person from whom the assets or books of account or other documents or electronic media or computer system were seized or requisitioned" and requires handing over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction; the Assessing Officer then exercises powers under sub-sections (2) to (4). - Act (Section 251): Sub-section (1) refers more broadly to "the authorised officer referred to in section 247(1) has no jurisdiction over the person referred to in section 247(1)(a) or (b)," and requires handing over assets/material to the Assessing Officer within 180 days from search/requisition; the Assessing Officer then exercises powers under sub-sections (2) and (3).
  • Practical impact: The Act expands the cross-reference (247(1) generally, and explicitly includes 247(1)(a) & (b)) and adds a 180-day temporal requirement for handover. This narrows discretion to delay handover and creates a clear timeline, increasing predictability for taxpayers and officers. The change also alters which sub-sections the receiving Assessing Officer will apply (Act: (2) & (3); Bill: (2) to (4)), potentially changing procedural detail applied after handover.
• Terminology - "assets and material" vs. "material" and enumerated items: - Bill: Uses "assets or books of account or other documents or electronic media or computer system" and then "material" generically. - Act: Uses "assets and material seized or requisitioned" consistently.
  • Practical impact: The Act's consolidated phrase "assets and material" may be broader and less specific; the Bill's explicit listing clarifies the types of items covered (books, documents, electronic media, computer systems). This could affect interpretation of scope if disputes arise over specific media.
• Procedure for allowing copies/extracts: - Bill: Clause 251(2) permits the authorised officer or the Assessing Officer to allow the person to make copies/take extracts, "in the presence of a person empowered by such officer in this behalf." - Act: Section 251(2) permits the person to make copies/take extracts "in the presence of such officer or any other person empowered by such officer in this behalf."
  • Practical impact: Act explicitly allows the authorised officer himself to be present (or another empowered person). The Bill permits either authorised officer or Assessing Officer to allow copying but ties presence to "a person empowered by such officer." The Act's phrasing slightly broadens presence options and clarifies who may supervise copying.
• Retention period language and cross-references: - Bill: Clause 251(3)(a) allows retention "up to one month from the end of the quarter in which the order of assessment or reassessment or recomputation is made;" clause (b) allows longer retention after reasons and approval. - Act: Section 251(3)(a) permits retention "up to one month from the end of the quarter in which the order of assessment or reassessment or recomputation is made u/s 270(10) or section 271 or section 279 or section 294(1)(c);" clause (b) similar but requires approval from approving authority.
  • Practical impact: The Act adds specific cross-references to assessment provisions (ss. 270(10), 271, 279, 294(1)(c)), thereby linking retention timelines to particular finalisation events. This provides clearer legal triggers for retention calculations, reducing ambiguity about which orders start the clock.
• Limits on prolonged retention by approving authority: - Bill: Clause 251(4) states approving authority shall not allow retention "beyond thirty days from the date on which all proceedings under this Act in respect of the years for which the material ... are relevant, are completed." - Act: Section 251(4) limits retention "beyond thirty days from the date on which all the proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) or this Act in respect of the years ..."
  • Practical impact: The Act expressly includes proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961 in addition to the new Act, broadening situations where the 30-day outer limit applies and preventing prolonged retention where legacy proceedings under the 1961 Act remain relevant.
• Remedies against approving authority decision: - Both: Provide right to apply to the Board if person objects to approving authority approval under sub-section (3)(b); Board may, after hearing, pass orders as it thinks fit.
  • Practical impact: Substantively similar; Act rephrases but preserves the appellate/administrative remedy to the Board.
• Timeframe for handover present only in Act: - Bill: No explicit time limit for handing over seized/requisitioned material to Assessing Officer. - Act: Mandates handover "within a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date on which a search is initiated u/s 247 or requisition is made u/s 248."
  • Practical impact: Adds a hard deadline that can be invoked by taxpayers to demand transfer, reducing potential administrative delays and forum-shopping between officers.

Practical Implications

• Compliance and risk areas: Tax authorities must ensure procedural fairness by scheduling appointed times/places and providing an empowered person to supervise copying/extraction. Failure to allow copies or to follow retention limits could attract administrative objections to the Board. Officers must document reasons in writing before seeking approval for extended retention.
• Record-keeping/evidence points: The clause implicitly requires written reasons for extended retention and an approving authority's sanction; therefore, contemporaneous documentation (records of handover, entries showing the appointment for copying, written reasons, approval orders) will be critical if disputes arise. Not stated in the document: specific formats or mandatory record templates.

Key Takeaways

• Clause 251 sets a framework for handing over seized or requisitioned material to the territorial Assessing Officer where jurisdictional gaps exist.
• Persons from whom material is seized have a statutory right to make copies or take extracts under controlled conditions.
• Retention by authorised officers is time-limited to one month from the end of the quarter in which an assessment/recomputation order is made; extensions require written reasons and approving authority approval.
• An approving authority cannot permit retention beyond thirty days after completion of all proceedings relevant to the seized material.
• Aggrieved persons may apply to the Board, which may hear them and pass orders as it thinks fit.
• The clause lacks detail on the identities/roles of approving authorities and the Board's procedure; it also omits express exceptions for competing public interests. Not stated in the document.

---

Full Text:

Section 251 Copying, extraction, retention and release of books of account and documents seized or requisitioned.

Retention limits for seized material clarified, with supervised copying rights and an administrative remedy to challenge extensions. Clause 251 requires transfer of seized assets and material to the territorial Assessing Officer where the seizing authorised officer lacks jurisdiction, mandates supervised opportunity for the person to make copies or extracts, prescribes statutory retention limits tied to assessment or recomputation events with written reasons and approving authority approval for extensions, and preserves a right to apply to the Board against approvals for extended retention.