9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenging income tax orders and seeking release of seized jewellery. Analysis: The petitioner challenged income tax orders and sought the release of seized jewellery, claiming ownership of 603.5 grams of jewellery acquired before marriage, declared under the voluntary disclosure scheme. The Income-tax Department conducted a search at her father-in-law's residence, seizing 405.03 grams of jewellery. The petitioner filed an affidavit claiming ownership of the seized jewellery. The Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax passed orders without hearing the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner's counsel argued that the jewellery belonged to her, as she resided with her father-in-law and husband at the time of the raid. The respondents contended that the jewellery belonged to the father-in-law and was seized to meet his liabilities under the Income-tax Act. They cited a Supreme Court decision to support their position. The court found a violation of natural justice as the petitioner was not heard before the orders were passed. The petitioner, being an affected party, should have been given an opportunity to present her case. The Commissioner of Income-tax failed to dispose of her application under section 132(11) of the Income-tax Act. The court quashed the order dated February 28, 1989, related to the seized jewellery and directed the second respondent to decide the petitioner's application within six weeks after providing her with a hearing. The court emphasized the importance of hearing parties before passing adverse orders and upheld the petitioner's right to be heard in the matter.
|
