Preparation of satisfaction note
on information collected from Financial Intelligence Unit to be treated
as unpublished document for which privilege under Evidence Act could be
validly claimed.
Facts:
a) The assessee was a leading importer and exporter of bullion, platinum bars and other precious metals;
b)
The search and seizure operations under section 132 were carried out
against assessee on basis of information received from Financial
Intelligence Unit (‘FIU’) that heavy cash amounts were deposited in bank
accounts of assessee and its sister concern on a regular basis;
c)
The assessee filed writ challenging the search and seizure operations
and claimed its right to examine satisfaction note to assail validity
and bona fides of search and
seizure operation;
d)
On other hand, revenue filed an application claiming privilege of
unpublished material in public interest under the Evidence Act
The High Court held in favour of revenue as under:
1)
It couldn’t be denied that the FIU, reporting directly to the Finance
Ministry, was responsible for receiving, processing, analyzing and
disseminating information related to suspected financial transactions;
2)
It was also responsible for coordinating with and strengthening the
efforts of national and international agencies, investigation into it in
pursuance of global efforts against money laundering, terrorist
financing and related crimes;
3) The preparation of the satisfaction note on such information could be treated as unpublished documents for which the
revenue has validly claimed privilege under sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act;
4)
A large amount of accounted black money is floating in the market which
poses a serious threat to the national economy. The Government of India
has adopted several methods to discouraging the parallel economy being
run by unscrupulous persons;
5)
The FIU is engaged in collecting such information against the money
laundering, terrorist
financing and related crimes. The sources and methods of the
organization collecting and processing such sensitive information
couldn’t be subjected to public scrutiny to jeopardize the interest of
the organization and national interest.
6)
Thus, the application filed by the Income-tax department was to be
allowed - M.D. OVERSEAS LTD. V. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME-TAX (2013) 38 taxmann.com 433 (Allahabad)
No comments:
Post a Comment