Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J
Amarinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Department – Respondent
CRM-M-37200-2021 | CRM-M-37204-2021 | CRM-M-37207-2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Gurmohan Singh Bedi, Mr. Amandeep S. Talwar, Mr. Pawandeep Singh, Mr. Anand V. Khanna, Ms. Ambika Bedi
For the Respondents: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Mr. Lokesh Narang, Mr. Vipul Joshi
Disclosure of judicial records to enforcement agencies for investigation is permissible, despite confidentiality agreements, provided it aligns with statutory and constitutional frameworks.
Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 277 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - The petitions challenge the orders permitting inspection of judicial records by the Enforcement Directorate (E.D.) necessary for ongoing investigations. The court found that the E.D. has locus standi and sufficient reasons to inspect the records and determined that Article 28 of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation does not bar such inspection, focusing on constitutional imperatives. (Paras 4-9)
(B) The arguments presented indicated the complexity around the exchange of information under international treaties and national laws. The court clarified roles of authorities involved in information sharing, reinforcing the principle that no confidentiality agreement can impede legitimate investigations. (Paras 4-8)
(C)
Findings of Court:
The order permitting the E.D. to inspect was upheld as lawful and justified, balancing confidentiality with the enforcement needs of governance.
Result: Petitions dismissed. (Pars 9-10)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case background and allegations against petitioners. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments for and against the e.d.'s inspection rights. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's reasoning on enforcement priorities and statutory provisions. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. final dismissal highlighting lawful execution of investigative proceedings. (Para 9 , 10) |
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.
These three petitions are interconnected, and raise common questions of law, therefore, the same are being decided together.
2. The first petition, CRM-M-37200-2021, has been filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘ Cr.P.C .’) for setting aside the order dated 02.09.2021, Annexure P-8, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in CRR No.12 of 01.10.2020 dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, dated 18.09.2020, in COMA 7115/2020 dated 14.08.2020. Further, prayer has been made to set aside the Magistrate’s order dated 18.09.2020 as well, whereby the application filed by the second respondent/Directorate of Enforcement (for short, ‘E.D.’) to inspect the documents attached with the complaint filed by the first respondent/Income Tax Department (for short, ‘I.T. Department’) has been allowed.
2.1. The other two petitions, CRM-M-37204-2021 and CRM-M- 37207-2021, have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C . by son of the petitioner in the first petition with identical prayers to quash the orders dated 02.09.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in CRR No.11 dated 01.10.2020 and CRR No.10 dated 25.09.2020, dismissing the revision petitions filed by the petitioners, as also the orders dated 18.09.2020, whereby applications filed by the E.D. to inspect documents attached with the complaint filed by the I.T. Department have been allowed.
3. To notice the facts in brief from the first petition, CRM-M-37200- 2021, the I.T. Department filed a complaint dated 30.11.2016, before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, against the petitioner under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 , read with Sections 176, 177, 181, 186, 187, 193 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’), inter alia, alleging as under:
2. That the Income Tax Department, received credible information from the Foreign Authorities through official channels, that the accused is the beneficiary of foreign assets maintained and controlled through foreign business entities. The accused is also the beneficiary of foreign bank accounts maintained with HSBC Private Bank (SUISSE) S.A Geneva, Switzerland. Based upon these documents Summon u/s 131(1A) of the Act was issued to Sh. Amarinder Singh 30.03.2016 to know about his association/relation with the Jacaranda Trust and/or its related entities and also about the property P29, Marina Mansions in Dubai which was acquired through one of the beneficially owned/associated companies of the Jacaranda Trust. As per information available on record, original request to transfer the property P29, Marina Mansions in Dubai was received from Mr. Amarinder Singh i.e. father of Mr. Raninder Singh. Sh. Amarinder Singh was asked to appear in person or furnish the required information as per Annexure-A to Summons dated 30.03.2016 through AR in the form of a sworn affidavit duly notarized.
3. That on 22.07.2011 information in the form of master- sheets was received by the Director General of Income Tax (Inv.), Chandigarh, thereby indicating association/connection of the family members of the accused with certain foreign entities. The information in the form of master-sheets was originally received in Paris (France) (on 28.06.2011 by the Competent Authority of India i.e. Foreign Tax and Tax Research (FT&TR) Division of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), officially from the Competent French Authority as per the provisions of Article 28 of Double Taxation Avoidance Convention (DTAC) between India and France. This information was received in soft copy in the form of USB Pen Dr
