2014 (7) TMI 349 - HC - Income Tax

Release of silver weighing 251.380 kg silver has not be released despite the order of assessment has been passed - Held that - The AO had already passed an order to release 251.380 kg of silver - revenue has submitted that however in view of the fact that 251.380 kg of silver, which is required to be returned to the petitioner, is not identified and/or verified, as at the initial stage when the cash, gold and silver were seized, all were mixed, on proper identification and verification with the assistance of the representative of the petitioner and on producing the indemnity bond of the like amount so that in future if anybody claims the same, the same can be recovered from the petitioner, the respondents have no objections and as such cannot have any objection to return 251.380 kg of silver to the petitioner revenue is directed to release and/or return 251.380 kg of silver, which was seized under panchnama which was drawn dated 03/03/2004 Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition for release of seized silver weighing 251.380 kg under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the release of 251.380 kg of silver seized by the police during a raid at the old Delhi Railway Station. The silver was requisitioned under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment order under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Act had added the value of the silver to the petitioner's income. Despite the assessment order, the silver had not been released, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court for relief.

The respondents, represented by Ms. Bhatt, acknowledged that the Assessing Officer had already ordered the release of the silver. However, they raised concerns about identifying and verifying the specific 251.380 kg of silver due to it being mixed with other seized items initially. To address this issue, the respondents proposed that upon proper identification and verification, with the petitioner's representative present, and the petitioner furnishing an indemnity bond, the silver would be returned. The Court accepted this proposal and directed the concerned respondents to release the silver within six weeks, emphasizing the importance of proper identification, especially considering that most of the silver was in bar form.

The Court disposed of the petition based on the agreement between the parties and permitted direct service of the order. The judgment highlighted the need for a meticulous process of identification and verification to ensure the accurate return of the seized silver to the petitioner within the specified timeframe.