Site Title

Author: Sidheswar Jena, PhD Scholar (Law)

Section 247 of the Income Tax Act, 2025: Power or Problem?

Introduction

India’s new Income Tax Act, 2025 introduced Section 247, giving tax officers the power to access an assessee’s email, social media accounts, and other digital platforms during searches. While framed as a modernization to fight tax evasion, this provision raises hard questions: Will it truly curb corruption, or will it expand government control and officer misuse?

Why Section 247 Was Introduced

Digital Economy: Much wealth and fraud today exist in online platforms, crypto, and ecommerce.

 Tax Evasion: Authorities argue they need digital access to track black money.

 Global Practice: Other countries like the US and UK also allow tax agencies digital access, but with stronger judicial safeguards.

The Contradictions

 Targeting Citizens, Ignoring Politicians: Ordinary taxpayers face scrutiny, but politicians who grow from daily wage earners to millionaires escape investigation.

 Officers’ Wealth: Tax officers themselves often live beyond their known income, but their accounts are never searched.

 Political Misuse: Raids fall heavily on opposition leaders, rarely on those in power.

 No Oversight: Section 247 allows digital intrusion without prior court approval—leaving privacy rights vulnerable.

 Broader Context

India is already facing:  Privatisation of essentials: Education and healthcare dominated by private lobbies.

 Low recovery rates: Actual recovery from raids is minimal compared to corruption losses.

 Brain drain: Many young Indians leave for better opportunities abroad, fearing lack of fairness at home. Instead of rebuilding trust, Section 247 may widen the gap between citizens and the state.

 Risks

 Officer Corruption: Powers may be used for blackmail or selling sensitive data.

 Privacy Breach: Violates the Supreme Court’s privacy judgment (Puttaswamy, 2017).

 Public Distrust: People may see it as surveillance, not tax reform.

 Selective Justice: Used more as a political weapon than a fair enforcement tool.

 Missing Safeguards

 No law to monitor officers’ own wealth.

 No equal scrutiny for politicians.

 No independent oversight body.

Without these, the law appears one-sided and biased against ordinary taxpayers.

Conclusion

Section 247 could have been a bold step to curb digital tax fraud. Instead, it risks becoming a tool of state overreach and corruption. Unless politicians and officers are equally scrutinized, and unless judicial oversight is built in, the law may deepen mistrust and drive more people away from India’s already fragile tax system.