2011 (1) TMI 43 - HC - Income Tax

Search and Seizure - Addition u/s 69A - unexplained jewellery - return of jewellery - Revenue submitted that in case jewellery is returned to the petitioner, family members of the petitioner may make a claim on the said jewellery - petitioner, on the other hand, has submitted that he is ready and willing to furnish no objection certificate from the family members and indemnity bond to the authorities to the satisfaction of the Income Tax authorities - Held that - order of CIT set aside and quashed - remanded back for re hearing and for speaking order - Refund, if due, will be paid within 15 days thereafter along with interest, if payable, in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Summary

Issues:
Restoration of Writ Petition, Treatment of Seized Assets, Assessment of Income, Refund of Taxes, Ownership of Jewellery

Restoration of Writ Petition:
The High Court allowed the restoration of a Writ Petition that was filed for the return of seized assets. The Revenue Department had no objection to the restoration, leading to the writ petition being directed to be restored to its original number. The court then proceeded to hear the writ petition after restoring the matter.

Treatment of Seized Assets:
Following a search and seizure operation by the Income Tax Department, assets including cash and jewellery were seized from the petitioner. Subsequently, orders were passed treating the jewellery and cash as unexplained, with specific amounts being highlighted for each. The assessment order assessed the petitioner's total income, making additions for unexplained investments in jewellery but not for the cash amount.

Assessment of Income:
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax passed an assessment order adding the unexplained investment in jewellery to the petitioner's total income. However, through appeals, the addition was reduced, and eventually, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleted the entire addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision became final, leading to the petitioner seeking the return of the jewellery and a refund of taxes paid.

Refund of Taxes:
The petitioner requested the return of seized jewellery and a refund of taxes paid, which was denied by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The court found that the order did not address the refund issue adequately and directed the Commissioner to examine the refund claim and pass a speaking order. If any refund was found to be due, it was to be paid to the petitioner in accordance with the law.

Ownership of Jewellery:
The ownership of the seized jewellery was disputed, with the petitioner claiming it belonged to her, supported by evidence from her brother regarding its gifting during her marriage. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that the jewellery belonged to her. The court directed a fresh order to be passed regarding the return of jewellery, with the petitioner willing to provide necessary documentation to satisfy the Income Tax authorities.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed various issues related to the restoration of the writ petition, treatment of seized assets, assessment of income, refund of taxes, and ownership of jewellery, providing detailed analysis and directives for further actions to be taken by the concerned authorities.