ED Can Inspect IT Dept Documents Filed Before Magistrate | HC

Case Details: Amarinder Singh vs. Income-tax Department - [2025] 178 taxmann.com 280 (Punjab & Haryana) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Tribhuvan Dahiya, J.
• Gurmohan Singh Bedi, Amandeep S. Talwar, Pawandeep Singh, Anand V. Khanna & Ms Ambika Bedi, Advs. for the Petitioner
• Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel, Lokesh Narang, Sr Panel Counsel & Vipul Joshi, Adv. for the Respondent

Facts of the Case

The Director General of Income Tax (Inv.) received information from the competent authority of France that the assessee and his family members were associated with certain foreign entities. The information was in the form of master-sheets and was received in Paris (France) by the Competent French Authority as per the provisions of Article 28 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Convention (DTAC) between India and France.

The said information was placed on record by the Income Tax Department in the criminal proceedings initiated against the assessee. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) moved an application for inspection of the information/documents. The application was allowed by the Magistrate, and the assessee filed a revision to the Sessions Court.

The Sessions Court dismissed the revision petition. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court

High Court Held

The High Court ruled that the information was protected under the Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with France and could not be disclosed to any third person or authority. The information or documents placed on record before the Magistrate by the complainant have been sought by another government Department/E.D. for the purpose of investigation. It is not the case that the information has been demanded for public dissemination; rather, it is intended solely for the purpose of conducting the investigation against the petitioner.

The Government of India has entered into this Agreement with the French Republic, whereunder the information has been handed over to the complainant. In the event that the disclosure of information causes a violation of the Agreement’s terms, it is the Department’s responsibility to oppose it on that ground, not that of the petitioners. The Department had no objection to sharing the information for investigation, nor can such an objection be raised on its behalf in the light of the law.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India [2011] 12 taxmann.com 27/339 ITR 107/200 Taxman 171 (SC) (para 8.3)
• State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder (2011) 8 SCC 737 (para 8.4) Followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder (2011) 8 SCC 737. (para 4)
• Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India [2011] 12 taxmann.com 27/339 ITR 107/200 Taxman 171 (SC) (para 5).