The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Income Tax Act, 2025, that empower officials to undertake “arbitrary search and seizure”.

Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for the petitioner who challenged Section 247(B) and Section 249 of the IT Act, 2025, said the provisions violated citizens’ privacy rights as it gave arbitrary powers to the authorities to conduct search and seizure operations on mere suspicion and spared them the obligation to disclose the reason behind such suspicion either to the assesses or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

The IT Act, 2025, will come into force from April 1. At present, Section 132 of the IT Act deals with the scope of search and seizure.

However, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the provisions were judicially justiciable and should not worry genuine assessees who could always approach the high courts if they felt they had been wronged.

Hegde said the provisions should be modified to such an extent that an aggrieved person could at least approach the I-T tribunal for relief because not every taxpayer could move the high court.

The senior counsel insisted that there should be “adequate mechanism” to ensure that the reason behind search and seizure was disclosed to the assesses and recalled that even the comptroller and auditor general had raised concern over the provisions.

“Also, a system can be made better so that assessees are not unnecessarily harassed,” Hegde said.

However, the bench said Parliament in its wisdom had incorporated the provisions to tackle the menace of black money and tax evaders.

Hegde sought the top court’s permission to make a representation to the central government for creating suitable safeguards in the provisions, but the CJI said: “We do not want to oblige anyone. If you want to go, you can go and make a representation.”

Section 247(B) empowers I-T officers to conduct search and seizure operations if it has reasons to suspect that “any person in possession of any asset or information in relation to any asset and such asset represents either wholly or partly, income or property which has not been or would not be disclosed, for the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or the Black Money (undisclosed foreign income and assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 or this Act”.