HC Allows Inspection of Foreign Docs for Fair Trial Rights

Case Details: Ritu Butalia vs. State [2026] 185 taxmann.com 635 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
• H.S. Bhullar & Fateh Singh Bhullar, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Shoaib Haider, APP, Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel, Debesh Panda, Counsel, Sanjeev Menon, Induraj, JSCs, Vivek Gurnani, Kartik Sabharwal & Satyam, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee filed an application before the trial court seeking the production of all original documents relied upon and their inspection to effectively cross-examine the witness. The documents pertained to the assessee’s undisclosed foreign assets, specifically interests in British Virgin Islands (BVI) entities (M/s Choice Gate Incorporated and M/s Arington Holdings Ltd) and a Bank Account with UBS AG, Singapore.

The trial court dismissed the application, observing that it prima facie appeared to be an attempt to delay the trial, and imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000. The assessee filed an instant petition before the Delhi High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the documents were not obtained by a private individual but were received by the Income Tax Department, Government of India, from the competent authorities of BVI and Singapore under International Treaties, i.e. TIEA and DTAA. The documents were transmitted through the Joint Secretary (FT&TR), who is the Competent Authority in India.

While the mode of transmission is official, the mere fact that a document is received via official channels does not automatically exempt it from the requirements of proof. However, it carries a strong presumption of genuineness. To be admissible in evidence, the documents still need to be proved in accordance with Section 78 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Further, the right of the accused to a fair trial includes the right to effective cross-examination. If the defence rests on challenging the admissibility of the documents on the ground of statutory non-compliance with Section 78(6) of the IEA, the accused must be afforded an opportunity to demonstrate that the originals indeed lacked the required Seal/Certification.

Denying inspection of documents, particularly foreign documents where authenticity is paramount and which form the foundation of the Prosecution’s case, would prejudice the defence.