2012 (11) TMI 593 - HC - Income Tax

Undisclosed Stock release of seized gold - one kg of gold already released - held that - As Assessment proceedings are still not complete and one kilogram of gold has been released to the petitioner after this writ petition was filed and what is held by the Department is, according to the Department, insufficient to realise the probable demand. In such circumstances, the prayer sought in this writ petition, cannot be granted and therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. This shall be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek appropriate orders once the assessment proceedings attained finality.

Summary

Issues:
1. Adjustment of seized assets against amounts due on completion of assessment for the Block Period.
2. Refusal to sell part of seized assets for adjustment of amounts due.
3. Release of one kilogram of gold to the petitioner.
4. Retention of balance gold by the Department.
5. Insufficiency of the remaining gold to cover the probable demand.
6. Dismissal of the writ petition with the option to seek appropriate orders after finality of assessment proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a jeweler, had gold and silver ornaments seized during an Income Tax Act search in 2000. The block assessment resulted in a tax demand of Rs.52,80,294, treating certain gold and silver items as unexplained stock. The Appellate Commissioner reduced the undisclosed income value to Rs.62,56,273, remanding a portion of gold purchase for further assessment.

2. The Department appealed the remand order, leading to the Tribunal directing reconsideration by the Commissioner (Appeals). Meanwhile, the petitioner sought adjustment of seized assets against the due amounts, citing financial constraints. The Department released one kilogram of gold to the petitioner but retained the rest to cover the probable demand exceeding Rs.1.53 crores.

3. The Department argued that the remaining 5094 grams of gold, valued at Rs.76,41,000, was insufficient to meet the potential liability. As the assessment proceedings were ongoing, the court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to seek appropriate relief once the assessment process concluded, emphasizing the need for finality in the decision-making process.