Tax searches not targeted: I-T dept to HC as lawyer alleges violation of rights

In his petition, advocate Maulik Sheth challenged the manner of officials conducting the tax searches at his office and home. Documents held by him in a professional capacity were seized during the operations, he said. He also alleged a violation of his fundamental rights, including the right to privacy.

A division bench of the High Court had earlier this month pulled up the tax officials. The court asked them the reason for not taking action for dereliction of duty under the Income Tax Act after it emerged that the officers conducted search and seizure at the advocate’s office and residence and a third party was linked.

The bench of Justices Bhargav Karia and Niral Mehta reiterated on Monday that it is “perturbed” by the manner of the searches. In response, the Additional Solicitor General informed the court that the search followed six months of information gathering by the I-T department and was not merely a fluke.

“It is not that we took a chance, (or) it was a fluke, we arrived at something…we clearly knew what was lying where and it is on that strength we went there…want this court to record it. We have not done off-the-cuff or a roving inquiry. With absolutely impeccable information we have gone to the premises,” Venkataraman said, while adding the seizures made from the lawyer’s premises are “shocking” and “abhorring”.

Sharing details of the search and seizures made with the court confidentially, Venkataraman added, “We’ve not targeted a particular professional or his professional capacity. The couple (lawyer and his wife) has moved away from a professional capacity and engaged in something else which is what we have targeted. Your lordships should isolate professional capacity and the conduct and action done…”

Responding to this, Justice Karia remarked that the ASG could then make a statement that the I-T department “will not use any of the data collected” in the seizures linked to other third parties.

“We are at present not examining the validity of the search, we are not examining documents searched related to the 43 premises or the 62 persons where you’ve searched. We are only concerned with documents collected by you other than the search operation in your possession…because with this kind of approach none of your brothers and sisters (in the legal fraternity) will be safe…we’re concerned with third parties who have nothing to do with the search operations,” said Justice Karia.

Venkataraman went on to submit before the court that the search was “not directed against a lawyer in his professional capacity, or to target advocates of our community through him”.

He added that “any presumption that this is targeted against a professional, and through him, the professional community, is a misconception and (I) flatly deny the misconception.”

The Additional Solicitor General further sought that the petition be dismissed, preferably with costs. He submitted that declaring the search as fraudulent would be “demoralising” for I-T officials who were only discharging their duty lawfully.

Venkataraman submitted, “This is a search involving 43 premises and 62 people and some of them actually ran away to Rajasthan, so we had to chase them, bring them back, and record statements… they’ve not filed a writ petition. They ran with prior information…(Not) one person was arrested, humiliated, no one has protested, (and) incriminating evidence is found. If this kind of search is going to be shunned and if officers are going to be taken to task, we cannot do investigation anymore.”

The court is due to take up the matter again on Wednesday.