![Income Tax Dept. Can’t Use Advocate’s Cloned Digital Data Against Unsearched Clients: Allahabad High Court [READ ORDER]](https://www.jurishour.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Income-tax-search-advocate-allahabad-hc-696x392.jpg "Income Tax Dept. Can’t Use Advocate’s Cloned Digital Data Against Unsearched Clients: Allahabad High Court [READ ORDER]")
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Income Tax Department to segregate and delete confidential data belonging to clients of a practising advocate after the Revenue clarified that it did not intend to rely upon information relating to clients who were not covered by the search proceedings.
The Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi passed the interim direction in a writ petition filed by advocatechallenging the legality of a search conducted at his premises under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act.
Buy Now: Income tax E-Compilation – August 2026
The case raised a significant question concerning the protection of advocate-client privileged communications when tax authorities clone electronic storage devices during a search. The advocate alleged that the cloned data included confidential information relating to several clients and that such information was being utilised against those clients.
The High Court described the controversy as involving a “serious issue of violation of fundamental rights”. While observing that the challenge to the validity of the search could be considered after the exchange of affidavits, the Court expressed immediate concern over the alleged use of client information copied or cloned from the advocate’s electronic devices.
The Court noted that information maintained by a lawyer in relation to clients may constitute privileged communication. Its use against clients who were neither searched nor connected with the proceedings could therefore result in a breach of the confidentiality attaching to the advocate-client relationship.
The petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in In Re: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues, reported in (2026) 2 SCC 233. The judgment was cited in support of the protection available to privileged communications exchanged between advocates and their clients.
In its initial order dated July 22, 2026, the High Court sought clear written instructions from the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Revenue authorities on four specific aspects.
The authorities were asked to clarify whether any material relating to third parties had been recovered during the search under Section 132, whether such information had been extracted from the advocate’s electronic storage devices, and whether the recovered material concerned his clients.
The Court also asked whether any inquiry or proceedings had been initiated against those third parties on the strength of the recovered information. It further sought clarification on whether prior permission from any court had been obtained before undertaking the exercise.
When the matter was subsequently heard on August 24, 2026, Additional Solicitor General N. Venkatraman, appearing for the Revenue, made a statement clarifying the department’s position.
The Revenue stated that it did not propose to rely upon data contained in the cloned hard drive—identified as “HDD-1”—insofar as the data related to any entity or client other than the petitioner and the principal searched entity, M/s International Agro Foods (Qureshi Group).
The High Court recorded the Revenue’s clarification that the other clients had not been searched and that, at present, no proceedings were contemplated against them.
The Revenue also offered to provide the petitioner with a list of the documents proposed to be relied upon against him. Those documents could relate either to the petitioner’s individual cases or to the affairs of M/s International Agro Foods.
Acting on the statement, the Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax on August 31, 2026, at 11 a.m. Subject to his appearance and cooperation, the authorities were permitted to open the cloned hard drive in his presence.
The department was allowed to retain only the data relating to the petitioner or M/s International Agro Foods. All remaining information contained in the hard drive, including data relating to other clients, was directed to be deleted in the petitioner’s presence.
The Court further directed the petitioner and the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax to file appropriate affidavits regarding the segregation and deletion exercise.
On the first issue concerning the legality of the search itself, the Revenue was granted four weeks to file a counter-affidavit. The petitioner was allowed two weeks thereafter to submit a rejoinder.
The interim order is significant because it addresses the risks arising from indiscriminate cloning of electronic devices belonging to legal professionals. Such devices may contain confidential documents, legal opinions, correspondence, financial records and litigation strategies concerning numerous clients who have no connection with the investigation or search.
The Court has not yet finally decided the legality of the search or laid down a conclusive rule on the broader admissibility of electronically cloned data. Its interim directions, however, ensure that information belonging to unsearched clients is separated from material relevant to the search and is not retained or used by the Income Tax Department.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on October 12, 2026.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
