Preparation of satisfaction note on information collected from Financial Intelligence Unit to be treated as unpublished document for which privilege under Evidence Act could be validly claimed.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d) On other hand, revenue filed an application claiming privilege of unpublished material in public interest under the Evidence Act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3) The preparation of the satisfaction note on such information could be treated as unpublished documents for which the revenue has validly claimed privilege under sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act;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)
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